About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This thread has been created so as to create a space for what may be best termed as "objectivist critiques of objectivism". this thread is not here for people to dismiss entire branches or essentials. it is here for close, detailed analysis, looking at all factors involved, and asking what parts of the rand corpus work and which ones don't.

I request that posters here obey the following rules, although I have no power to enforce them:

1: as implied by the title of the thread, reason should be an absolute. it is only within the context of reason that we can even say effectively what things rand got wrong or right. this is a place for rational and logical critiques. method is more important than content here: I would rather see an intricate and thought out case against a position I like than a sloppy or abrasive post in favor of such.

2: I would like for this thread to get very much get into the "nitty gritty" of rand's arguments. precise citations and quotes from rand are requested. this makes it easier to go through the details of the argument and better evaluate it. I would like for this forum to be a place of close attention to qualifications, sub arguments, concept definitions and components: essentially for, again, very rigorous, scholarly analysis of rand.

I don't have the energy or time to post anything of this sort up here right now, so this thread will live or die on the interest of everyone else here until I have time to fully construct and write out an argument of this sort. everyone else should please jump right in.

Post 1

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

This thread has been created so as to create a space for what may be best termed as "objectivist critiques of objectivism".
 
Well, you asked for it. Actually this is in response to Andrew Bissell's There's No Such Thing As a Free Download article.

The following is in oppostion to the Objectivist view of Intellectual Property (Patents and Copyrights). It is from the Commentary on Intellectual Property in the The Autonomist's Notebook.

I hope this will generate some reasonable discussion for you.

Regi

Commentary - Intellectual Property

The pseudo-concept, intellectual property, is an amalgamation of two incommensurate ideas. Property is the product of work, the intellectually guided effort that produces an entity or substance, or performs a service. The property may be any tangible thing (such as shoes, cars, or CDs) or substance (such as soap, steel, or drugs). In the case of a service, the "property" is usually in the form of, "money," paid for the service, but could be any other kind of tangible property, "payed," in exchange for the service.

Property consists of physical existents which can be counted or measured. Property consist of physical goods made from physical substances or components. Physical goods can be reproduced, but require more physical substance or components (resources) to reproduce them. Physical goods cannot be used or consumed without limiting their availability or existence to other users and consumers. Physical goods can be "used up" or "destroyed."

Ideas are psychological (not physical) existents consisting of concepts or combinations of concepts—ideas have no physical qualities. Ideas can be reproduced indefinitely without requiring any physical substances of components (resources). Ideas can be used indefinitely without limiting their availability or existence to other users. Ideas cannot be "used up or destroyed."

Since property consists of physical (material) tangible entities or substances and ideas consist of psychological (non-material) intangible concepts, the pseudo-concept intellectual property, means non-material material, (non-material intellectual material property). It is a self-contradictory non-concept.

The contradiction seems so obvious, one wonders how the concept could possibly have been developed. It is not a very old concept. It was developed shortly after the invention of the printing press, and came as a result of those who wrote books, with the idea of making a profit from printing and selling them, but found their expected profit diminished by others with printing presses who published their own versions of the same books.

Stupid Arguments
 
The original publishers did what most people do when the free market does not provide them with profit or income they expect or want. They appealed to the government to interfere in the free market and prevent others from printing "their" books. Their argument was, they had spent all the time and effort writing the book, others were profiting from their time and effort without compensating them for it. In other words, their argument was the Marxist argument, the value of there work was determined by their effort.

There is no rational basis in this argument at all. The only economic value of a book, or anything else, is the value the market is willing to pay for it. Presuming there is only one copy of the original manuscript, someone interested in having it might pay a great deal for it, but anyone only interested in reading it, would not pay so much. If the author decides to print (publish) it himself, he is entitled to all the income he can make from selling those published copies. The only products are the actual published books, not the idea contained in the original manuscript.

If someone else decides to publish the book, they cannot possibly make a profit if the author (or someone else) has already published the book and the market is saturated. To sell any books, the new publisher must offer something the original publisher does not, like a lower price, or larger print, or he must offer it to a market the original publisher has not reached. There is nothing to prevent the original publisher from doing whatever the new publisher intends to do, before the new publisher does it.

The original publisher always has the advantage of being first in the market, and of already having the "tooling" or whatever else is required to produce the product. If a competitor comes along and gains some of the original publishers market, it is because the new publisher is offering something the market wants and is willing to choose over the original publisher's product.

There is an even more foolish argument made these days for intellectual property, based on the notion that an idea can be property, even after it is shared with the public. It attempts to equate a grocer's inventory with an individual's idea, and goes something like this, "if it is OK for someone to sell someone else's property (idea) then it is OK to go into your local grocery store and take all the oranges in the store and set up your own orange stand on the sidewalk outside the store."

The obvious difference is that, "taking someone else's idea," (which only means they thought of it first), does not deprive them of the idea, or of selling it, while taking the grocer's oranges does deprive him of the oranges, which he no longer has to sell. This attempted argument from analogy fails, not only because it is false, but because it is a bad analogy.

There is no correct analogy along these lines, but one that would be less absurd is this: Suppose someone had an atomic duplicator and it could duplicate anything it could take a picture of. If the person with the atomic duplicator bought an orange in a grocery store, took a picture of it, and produced identical oranges with it which he subsequently sold, would that be a violation of property rights?

Now suppose someone buys a music CD, writes a program that can copy the CD and proceeds to make copies of the CD which he then sells. Is that a violation of property? The usual answer is yes. But how has anyone's property been violated? What property was taken away or destroyed? The actual case is just the opposite. If someone buys a CD, that CD is his property. If someone else prevents him, by force or the threat of it, from using his property, (the CD he purchased) in any way he pleases, it is his property rights that are violated. If he uses the CD he has purchased to produce new CDs and is prevented from selling the new CDs or has them confiscated, the product of his effort, a tangible "real" product is violated.

(Obviously if someone buys something and agrees at the time it is purchased not to reproduce the product in any way, and does so in writing, it is a violation of that contract if copies are made. This is not the case with CDs however. No one signs or agrees to anything when they buy a CD, no matter what is printed on anything accompanying it.)

But an orange is not an idea, is it? Well, if it isn't, either is a CD. But an orange cannot be reproduced by making a copy of an orange, can it? But just what does an orange tree do. If I buy an orange, plant the seeds from it (if the orange is not a hybrid) and grow trees that produce more oranges it is exactly like buying a CD and using my computer to produce more CDs. The only difference is, to produce CDs, I have to supply the reproducing device (the computer). Oranges not only can be used to reproduce from oranges, they even create their own reproducing device (the tree).

Potentials are Not Property
 
The most absurd argument for intellectual property is the argument that anyone who reproduces any of those things that are collected under that pseudo-concept is "stealing." If the producer of so-called intellectual property does an inventory before someone else makes their own copies and sells them (or gives them away) and takes another inventory after someone else makes their own copies and distributes them, they will discover that nothing is missing. The concept of theft is based on something being stolen, but if nothing is missing, just what is it the presumed violator of intellectual property rights stole?

Ready for the answer. It is potential. In an entirely different context, Ayn Rand said, "Rights do not pertain to a potential." ["Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968] But, in any context, the principle is the same. In this world there are no guarantees and one of the greatest mistakes of all governments is the attempt to provide them. Patent and copyright laws are perfect examples of this folly.
A potential cannot be property. What does not yet exist cannot be owned. What cannot be owned, cannot be stolen. To punish individuals or confiscate their actual property for the sake of a potential is a gross immorality.


  • By what mystic magic does thinking of something first confer the right to use unlimited force against anyone else from thinking those thoughts. Don't tell me you have freedom of thought if men with guns are going to prevent you from putting your thoughts into practice.    

    Patent and copyright law, far from protecting property, are a violation of an individual's freedom to think and act on his own thoughts. If you think of, develop, manufacture, and sell a product which it is subsequently discovered someone else thought of first, and patented, you will be prevented from continuing to manufacture and sell that product, even if the patent holder never has and never does produce the product.

    There is an argument from intimidation usually put forth whenever anyone points out the absurdity of patent and copyright law. "If people can't be certain they will be able to make a decent profit from new products they will not spend the effort to develop them." This is nonsense, of course. If an idea for a product is a not a good one, there will be no danger of someone else wanting to produce it anyway, and no "protection" is necessary. If an idea for a product is a good one, there will be profit in the manufacture and sale of the product whether it is protected or not. The only thing that is protected by patent and copyright laws is freedom from competition, that is, a guaranteed monopoly status, meaning there is no reason to attempt to either improve the product or make it less expensive. 

    Without patent or copyright protection, a business must maintain market advantage by producing the best possible product at the best possible price. There may not be as much profit without patent and copyright protection, but what is the moral argument for guaranteeing a certain amount of profit for any activity, and how is that amount determined? 


  • Since when can a potential be property. It is not the idea of a product that is property, it is the product. If two men both discover how to make a light bulb, but only one actually makes light bulbs, only that one has produced property. It makes no difference where they got their idea for light bulbs, whether they thought of the idea independently or one learned it from the other. It doesn't matter who thought of it first or who got to the patent office first.   

    An idea is not a product, it is only a potential product; until the product which the idea describes, is actually produced, there is no product to protect. There are literally millions of patents and copyrights for potential products that have never produced anything to buy or sell. All the protection in the world did not give them any value whatsoever. On the other hand, millions of dollars are spent every day for thousands of products that are no longer or never were patented or copyrighted. There are a lot of publishers making fortunes printing books which were never or are no longer copyright protected.

    Copyright and patent law is just another government impediment hampering the affectiveness of the free market. Not only would the economy not suffer if these laws were abolished, there would be a great economic boom because of it. However, do not expect it to happen, and only defy these laws if you are willing to accept the risk of facing a totally irrational and vicious foe of unlimited power.


  • Only governments can create coercive monopolies, through regulation or licensing, for example. Every patent is a government guaranteed and coercive monopoly.   

    There is no other definition for a patent or copyright protected product than a coercive monopoly. Patents and copyrights cannot be enforced except by the initiation of the use of force against those who have not initiated it.


  • What is property, what is its value, and who owns it? Property consists of tangible goods or products created or acquired through the intellectually guided effort (work) of a human being. It's value is determined by the amount of goods or products others are willing to trade for it. The individual who creates the goods or products or trades his own goods or products for them owns them. Although an idea has market value, it cannot be property because it is not tangible. (Services are also intangibles that have market value, and as a subset of services, so is labor. If an idea is patentable, or can be copyrighted, then so should a service, or even labor. That is, the first one to perform a service ought to be protected from anyone else performing that service and the first one to do some kind of work ought to be protected from anyone else doing that kind of work.)    

    How does doing anything first automatically grant that individual the privilege of preventing anyone else from doing it? What is the moral principle that says doing something first exempts an individual from competition from anyone else who wants to do it. 

    In reality, it is not who does something first, anyway. It is whoever can convince the patent office that they did it first, whether they did it first or not, which is another unjust aspect of these immoral laws. 

    There is virtually no difference in principle between all those other government "service" monopolies created through licensing, like doctors, lawyers, plumbers, and electricians, and those created by patent and copyrights. The only difference is the excuse used.


  • An idea cannot be property, nor can a collection of ideas, no matter how they are organized, presented, or sold. Books and software are only collections of ideas, in books it's words, in software it's logic functions.

    The patenting or copyrighting of computer programs is very odd, because a computer program is nothing more than a series of states of some kind, in computer memory, or a hard disk, or some other recording media. The program itself can do nothing, and does not even have any meaning. For any program, only certain computers can use it, and then it is how the computer uses the stored series of states that actually makes something of the program.

    The actual functions the computer program performs can always be done many different ways. In other words, many different computer programs can be written to perform exactly the same functions. Both actual programs, and computer functions have been patented and copyrighted. This means, any function for which a program has been written and copyrighted, no other program for that same function can be written and sold. This really is a deterrent to new development. 

    If the software happens to be images, text, or music, and the images, text, or music have been copyrighted, it becomes illegal to copy that software and sell it. The interesting thing is, there never are any images, text, or music in the software. There is only a series of states. Again, the right computer can use that series of states to produce images, text, or music, but they are not in the software itself or on whatever that software is recorded, such as a tape or CD. 

    It is possible to create a computer and program that can from any "recorded" music, for example, produce, instead of the original music, something entirely different, such as an image (very easy to do) or an entirely different piece of music (not easy, but already has been done). The fact is, the software on a CD is essentially a tool that can be used to reproduce something specific, but can be used to produce something entirely different; but, whatever is reproduce, (music, images, information) it is not on the CD, and does not exist until some computer uses the CD to produce it.


  • Patents produce the same results that all Government monopolies produce, an elite group of individuals who produce products that are not affected by the market, because no one is allowed to produce a better or cheaper versions of the product.

    Because patent and copyright protected products are a coercive monopoly. (See above, "Only governments can create...")


  • What other kind of property ceases to exist on some arbitrary date set by a government.

    (See next.)


  • Outside the concept of a government, the concept of intellectual property is an impossibility. Those who understand the nature of government will understand this automatically invalidates the concept of intellectual property.

    Whatever exists only by government fiat, like money backed, not by gold, but government mandate, or ideas or potentials turned into property by government declaration, cannot be dealt with as rationally identifiable entities. These things exist only on the whim of the current ruler or administration, and can disappear as quickly as they come into existence, without predictability. Their nature can never be learned or evaluated, the way gold, or an actual product can be analyzed and evaluated, because their very nature is determined not by reality but the caprice of whatever bureaucrats or committee is put in charge of them.

  • (Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/11, 9:06am)


    Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
    Post 2

    Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 12:20pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Regi-

    You misunderstand the law.

    Since property consists of physical (material) tangible entities or substances and ideas consist of psychological (non-material) intangible concepts, the pseudo-concept intellectual property, means non-material material, (non-material intellectual material property). It is a self-contradictory non-concept.
    This is false. An invention is a creation by an individual's mind, a creation that is given physical form in a device or machine or a book, etc. It qualifies as property for the same reason as any other product of human creative effort. If my labor creates an orange, that orange belongs to me. If my labor creates an idea that is unique, novel, non-obvious and can be given form, that idea belongs to me.

    One is not allowed to patent a mere non-physical idea. The law requires that the idea be "reduced to practice". This means you have to actually create the physical invention and demonstrate that it works. Moreover, you must disclose in the patent the "best method" of manufacturing the invention -- so one cannot patent a one-of-a-kind prototype that can be only produced in a lab. One must show manufacturing feasibility.

    Nor is one allowed to arbitrarily demand a patent from the government. One must prove, as indicated above, that the idea is original and novel, it cannot be merely an extension of an existing device. The patent office assigns an examiner who compares the proposed invention to thousands of existing inventions and products. He demands to know what makes it unique. The claims of the patent -- the statements that describe the breadth of what is claimed -- are always modified and restricted by the examiner. In effect, the examiner starts with the assumption that the proposed invention is not unique or novel or non-obvious -- and you have to prove that it is. That is why it takes 1.5 to 3 years to get a patent through this approval process -- if it is approved at all; many are not.

    Nor can one patent a discovery, only an invention. A discovery is the identification of new knowledge, i.e.of some aspect of reality previously unknown or not understood. In the case of discovery, nothing has been created, so there is nothing to own. Only an invention can be patented.

    The original publishers did what most people do when the free market does not provide them with profit or income they expect or want. They appealed to the government to interfere in the free market and prevent others from printing "their" books. Their argument was, they had spent all the time and effort writing the book, others were profiting from their time and effort without compensating them for it. In other words, their argument was the Marxist argument, the value of there work was determined by their effort.

    This was not an argument about the value of the book, but rather about the ownership of its contents.



    There is no rational basis in this argument at all. The only economic value of a book, or anything else, is the value the market is willing to pay for it. Presuming there is only one copy of the original manuscript, someone interested in having it might pay a great deal for it, but anyone only interested in reading it, would not pay so much. If the author decides to print (publish) it himself, he is entitled to all the income he can make from selling those published copies. The only products are the actual published books, not the idea contained in the original manuscript.

    If someone else decides to publish the book, they cannot possibly make a profit if the author (or someone else) has already published the book and the market is saturated. To sell any books, the new publisher must offer something the original publisher does not, like a lower price, or larger print, or he must offer it to a market the original publisher has not reached. There is nothing to prevent the original publisher from doing whatever the new publisher intends to do, before the new publisher does it.

    The original publisher always has the advantage of being first in the market, and of already having the "tooling" or whatever else is required to produce the product. If a competitor comes along and gains some of the original publishers market, it is because the new publisher is offering something the market wants and is willing to choose over the original publisher's product.

    There is an even more foolish argument made these days for intellectual property, based on the notion that an idea can be property, even after it is shared with the public. It attempts to equate a grocer's inventory with an individual's idea, and goes something like this, "if it is OK for someone to sell someone else's property (idea) then it is OK to go into your local grocery store and take all the oranges in the store and set up your own orange stand on the sidewalk outside the store."

    The obvious difference is that, "taking someone else's idea," (which only means they thought of it first), does not deprive them of the idea, or of selling it, while taking the grocer's oranges does deprive him of the oranges, which he no longer has to sell. This attempted argument from analogy fails, not only because it is false, but because it is a bad analogy.

    There is no correct analogy along these lines, but one that would be less absurd is this: Suppose someone had an atomic duplicator and it could duplicate anything it could take a picture of. If the person with the atomic duplicator bought an orange in a grocery store, took a picture of it, and produced identical oranges with it which he subsequently sold, would that be a violation of property rights?
    This is all irrelevant. The issue is not how do we determine the value of something or how much profit can be made by the creators versus the copiers. The right to property is not contingent on the amount of economic good that accrues to its owner by virtue of calling it property -- nor is something to be declared non-property because doing so does little harm. Nor is the right to property a function of the effort required.

    The right to property is a corollary to the right to life -- it is the necessary recognition that man's life requires that he be allowed to keep the things he creates -- all of the things he creates, whether others value them or not, whether they are easy to copy or not.

    There is no basis whatsoever for saying that since a thing is easy to copy, we can ignore the fact that it first had to be created.


    Since an orange does not qualify as intellectual property, atomic copying it is not a problem.




    "taking someone else's idea," (which only means they thought of it first),

    An invention is not merely an idea that someone "thought of first". The requirements listed above -- reduction to practice, manufacturing feasibility, novelty, non-obviousness -- require a process of creation that rivals any other effort to make property.  It is far more than "thinking of something".

    Edison did not merely "think of the light bulb first." He spent thousands of man-hours in experimentation, identifying a material for the filament, determining the type of glass for the bulb, and designing a configuration that would work.  It is preposterous to say that at the end of that process, Edison deserves no more right to the invention of the lightbulb than does the first man that subsequently lays eyes on it.

    Atlas Shrugged does not belong to Ayn Rand simply because she was "the first one to write it."  It belongs to her because she created it.

    Now suppose someone buys a music CD, writes a program that can copy the CD and proceeds to make copies of the CD which he then sells. Is that a violation of property? The usual answer is yes. But how has anyone's property been violated? What property was taken away or destroyed? The actual case is just the opposite. If someone buys a CD, that CD is his property. If someone else prevents him, by force or the threat of it, from using his property, (the CD he purchased) in any way he pleases, it is his property rights that are violated. If he uses the CD he has purchased to produce new CDs and is prevented from selling the new CDs or has them confiscated, the product of his effort, a tangible "real" product is violated.



    It is not the CD that is protected, it is the art work it contains. The creation of a work of art -- a song -- is just as much an act of creation as the act of creating an orange. That song is the property of its creator. They and they alone have the right to determine its use and disposal, including how it is to be distributed. They have the right to set the conditions of sale, and if they are granted a copyright, they have the right to limit copying it.


     
    Obviously if someone buys something and agrees at the time it is purchased not to reproduce the product in any way, and does so in writing, it is a violation of that contract if copies are made. This is not the case with CDs however. No one signs or agrees to anything when they buy a CD, no matter what is printed on anything accompanying it.)

    An agreement need not be in signed and in writing to be binding. If it is clearly understood that non-copying is part of the terms and conditions of sale, that understanding is -- properly -- enforceable, just as enforceable as your understanding that the CD will play on a normal CD player, even though no one signed anything so indicating.


     
    The most absurd argument for intellectual property is the argument that anyone who reproduces any of those things that are collected under that pseudo-concept is "stealing." If the producer of so-called intellectual property does an inventory before someone else makes their own copies and sells them (or gives them away) and takes another inventory after someone else makes their own copies and distributes them, they will discover that nothing is missing. The concept of theft is based on something being stolen, but if nothing is missing, just what is it the presumed violator of intellectual property rights stole?
    The theft is in the form of unauthorized use. If you take an inventory of your automobiles on Monday and another on Friday, you will have the same number of automobiles. That does not mean it is okay for me to take one of your cars and use it without your permission on Wednesday.



     
    By what mystic magic does thinking of something first confer the right to use unlimited force against anyone else from thinking those thoughts. Don't tell me you have freedom of thought if men with guns are going to prevent you from putting your thoughts into practice.    

    Nothing in intellectual property law tells you what you can or can not think. And, as pointed out before, a discovery of new knowledge cannot be intellectual property.


    Patent and copyright law, far from protecting property, are a violation of an individual's freedom to think and act on his own thoughts. If you think of, develop, manufacture, and sell a product which it is subsequently discovered someone else thought of first, and patented, you will be prevented from continuing to manufacture and sell that product, even if the patent holder never has and never does produce the product.

    This is false. As noted earlier, the law requires you to reduce the invention to practice, i.e. to give it a physical existence. A patent holder that has never produced the invention has an in-valid patent.  As far as unused patents are concerned, a patent holder that makes no effort to commercialize a patent will not bother to defend it. They have nothing at stake to justify the expense of an infringement suit. Besides, they will usually grant a license for a small fee -- since they are not making money on it anyway.



     
    Copyright and patent law is just another government impediment hampering the affectiveness of the free market. Not only would the economy not suffer if these laws were abolished, there would be a great economic boom because of it. However, do not expect it to happen, and only defy these laws if you are willing to accept the risk of facing a totally irrational and vicious foe of unlimited power.
    I will not make the argument from practicality, but since the moral is the practical, I will show that this is false. The existence of a commercially successful patent draws competitors just as any successful item does. While it is true that the competitors will have to pay a licensing fee if they wish to produce the identical product -- which is a very common occurrence -- this is balanced by the fact that the patent is required to disclose all of the science and experimentation that went into the invention. This information can be used by anyone for anything -- including ideas for competing products that are not covered by the patent.

    I'll tell you what will "hamper the effectiveness" of a market; inability to get a return on investment. For example, drug companies would not spend billions on  research that stretches over decades if, the day their latest wonder drug hits the market, the competition were free to reverse-engineer the drug and sell at a fraction of the inventing company's price, which they would be able to do since they have not borne the costs of research.



     
  • Only governments can create coercive monopolies, through regulation or licensing, for example. Every patent is a government guaranteed and coercive monopoly.   

    There is no other definition for a patent or copyright protected product than a coercive monopoly. Patents and copyrights cannot be enforced except by the initiation of the use of force against those who have not initiated it.

  • What is property, what is its value, and who owns it? Property consists of tangible goods or products created or acquired through the intellectually guided effort (work) of a human being. It's value is determined by the amount of goods or products others are willing to trade for it. The individual who creates the goods or products or trades his own goods or products for them owns them. Although an idea has market value, it cannot be property because it is not tangible. (Services are also intangibles that have market value, and as a subset of services, so is labor. If an idea is patentable, or can be copyrighted, then so should a service, or even labor. That is, the first one to perform a service ought to be protected from anyone else performing that service and the first one to do some kind of work ought to be protected from anyone else doing that kind of work.)    

    How does doing anything first automatically grant that individual the privilege of preventing anyone else from doing it? What is the moral principle that says doing something first exempts an individual from competition from anyone else who wants to do it.
  •  

    Being first is not the primary issue. Creation of the new, unique, novel and non-obvious is the issue. The moral principle of intellectual property is that whoever creates a  new, unique, novel and non-obvious thing owns it.

  • A service is not patentable because no intellectual property has been created.

     
    In reality, it is not who does something first, anyway. It is whoever can convince the patent office that they did it first, whether they did it first or not, which is another unjust aspect of these immoral laws.

    In the case of conflicting claims of ownership, to prove invention one must have a double witnessed and dated statement describing the invention. In the absence of that, the party with the better documentation and/or witnesses will prevail. How else is the patent office to settle the dispute?
  •  



    Patents produce the same results that all Government monopolies produce, an elite group of individuals who produce products that are not affected by the market, because no one is allowed to produce a better or cheaper versions of the product.

    This is false. Patent holders are very much affected by the market and by competition. There are thousands of patents, but can you name me a single , significant market with only one supplier -- other than government enforced monopolies like power generation and the post office?



  • Post 3

    Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 6:29pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Michael,


    Thanks for the interesting and well reasoned comments.


    Since you have mostly attempted to refute my points, I do not intend to, "refute your refutations," which I think would be fruitless. I am certain I am not going to convince you since I am certain your views are well grounded in your best reason.


    Please take the following comments merely as observations and as examples of why I find your arguments unconvincing. Certainly you and others find them convincing enough, or you would not hold the view you do.


    An invention is a creation by an individual's mind, a creation that is given physical form in a device or machine or a book, etc.


    But that is my point. If you create a machine, a book, a bottle of drugs, or a tube of lipstick, those are property because they physically exist. The design of the machine, the ideas in the book, the formula for the drug, and the process for producing lipstick are not physical, have no material existence, and cannot be property.


    One is not allowed to patent a mere non-physical idea.


    Since when? I know of many patents on methods of encryption, for example. There is no physical aspect of those patents at all, and many have no practical application, yet. (Which should answer another assertion you made about patents having to be implemented.)


    To my statement about the origin of the copyright concept, (in part) "...Their argument was, they had spent all the time and effort writing the book, others were profiting from their time and effort without compensating them for it. In other words, their argument was the Marxist argument, the value of there work was determined by their effort," you said:  
    This was not an argument about the value of the book, but rather about the ownership of its contents.  
    Who's interested in owning what is of no value. The whole point of the argument concerned being able to prevent others from printing copies of the book so the original publishers (not the authors) would not have their sales reduced by a flooded market. Why else would they care?


    The right to property is a corollary to the right to life -- it is the necessary recognition that man's life requires that he be allowed to keep the things he creates -- all of the things he creates ...


    I do not know why this is so difficult. If you have an idea (we are talking about so-called intellectual property), one you develop because you need it to live your life, it does not matter a particle if one or a million other people have the same idea and use it, or how they got it, they cannot take your idea away from you or prevent you from using it. If all patents and copyrights were meant to do is ensure no one's ideas could be taken away from them, they would be superfluous. No one can take anyone's ideas away from them.


    If all patent and copyrights were meant to do is ensure the product of no one's effort were taken away from them, they are again superfluous. There are already laws against stealing.


    But patents and copyrights are not mean to protect anyone's ideas or property, their sole purpose is to prevent people from using their own ideas and their property.  
    Atlas Shrugged does not belong to Ayn Rand simply because she was "the first one to write it." It belongs to her because she created it.  
    Certainly all the original manuscripts belong to her (or her estate), but what exactly do you mean, "it belongs to her." If I buy the book Atlas Shrugged, it belongs to me. It is my property. I own it, fair and square. If it is my property. If my property rights are protected, I can do anything I want with that property. I can read it, burn it, or use it for toilet paper if I choose to.


    I can copy it. If I copy it, those copies are also my property. I created them using my own property and my own materials by my own effort. If I have property rights I may sell any property I own to anyone who is willing to pay for it, including the copies I made of Atlas Shrugged. The only thing that might stop me would be an abrogation of my rights by some immoral law, like copyright laws.


    Since an orange does not qualify as intellectual property, atomic copying it is not a problem.


    Metaphysically, once they exist, there is no difference between an orange and a CD. In terms of the nature of their existence, they are both metaphysical unalterable facts. "A man-made product did not have to exist, but once made it does exist. A man's actions did not have to to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality. ["The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, Page 27]


    Edison did not merely "think of the light bulb first." He spent thousands of man-hours in experimentation, identifying a material for the filament, determining the type of glass for the bulb, and designing a configuration that would work. It is preposterous to say that at the end of that process, Edison deserves no more right to the invention of the lightbulb than does the first man that subsequently lays eyes on it.


    When I said, "Their argument was, they had spent all the time and effort writing the book, others were profiting from their time and effort without compensating them for it. In other words, their argument was the Marxist argument, the value of there work was determined by their effort," you said, "This was not an argument about the value of the book ...," but that is the very argument you are now making. It is "preposterous to say ... Edison deserves no more right to the invention of the lightbulb," why? Because, "he spent thousands of man-hours in experimentation, identifying a material for the filament, determining the type of glass for the bulb, and designing a configuration that would work." But what is the patent protection for? to make sure he doesn't for get what he invented, or, to make sure he is able to make the amount of money he ought to because he put so much work into it.


    To my argument: "The most absurd argument for intellectual property is the argument that anyone who reproduces any of those things that are collected under that pseudo-concept is "stealing." If the producer of so-called intellectual property does an inventory before someone else makes their own copies and sells them (or gives them away) and takes another inventory after someone else makes their own copies and distributes them, they will discover that nothing is missing. The concept of theft is based on something being stolen, but if nothing is missing, just what is it the presumed violator of intellectual property rights stole?" You said:


    The theft is in the form of unauthorized use. If you take an inventory of your automobiles on Monday and another on Friday, you will have the same number of automobiles. That does not mean it is okay for me to take one of your cars and use it without your permission on Wednesday.


    Do I really need to tighten up my analogy to prove the disingenuousness of your comment. Just in case you do not really understand, let's include the fact the owner of the so-called intellectual property also has surveillance cameras on his product during the entire period in question, and none of his product is touched or "used" by anyone.


    An agreement need not be in signed and in writing to be binding.


    But to be an agreement means both parties actually have to agree. That is not the case with anything purchased where the manufacturer say, "if you buy this it means you agree to ... whatever." Whenever I read that, I say, "says you, but I do not agree."


    ... but can you name me a single , significant market with only one supplier ...


    Viagra, Cipro, and thousands of others.


    I know none of these comments will move you, but you might at least find them interesting. Maybe they will provide you information as ammunition for your own view.


    All of my arguments can be reduced to this: Property consists of physical entities and substances. Anything that attempts to make anything else property dilutes the principle of property, and thereby, the nature of all rights.


    Regi


    Post 4

    Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    [Originally posted by Fountain Head on the There's No Such Thing As a Free Download thread here:]

    Hello, Reginald. 

    I don't seem to be able to post my reply at the SOLO link that you have provided--Reason is Absolute.  Although I am logged in, I receive a

    Not logged in
    - You must be logged in to access this area
    ,so I will post it here.

    Ideas are psychological (not physical) existents consisting of concepts or combinations of concepts—ideas have no physical qualities. Ideas can be reproduced indefinitely without requiring any physical substances of components (resources). Ideas can be used indefinitely without limiting their availability or existence to other users. Ideas cannot be "used up or destroyed."

     

    I am not so sure about using a manufacturing concept (reproduce), which implies physicality, in conjunction with the reproduction of an idea, which, you state: “…have no physical qualities.”  If ideas have no physical qualities (I have no idea as to which sort of physical qualities ideas have, by the way) then just what is being reproduced?  Is reproduction of a non-physical entity possible?  

     

    Clearly there is a context problem involved here: A) we have mental events, which, I do take as existing as, of course, mental events, and B) the bringing into existence, in the non-mental event context, the idea which represent the mental event.

     

    This entire going from the mental to the non-mental, in my opinion, is too…awkward of a method of showing why an existing product ought to be legally replicated by a person whom does not hold the patent, or did not invent it.  

     

    Although I do not agree with your “Ideas are not physical,” I do, however, agree that I should have the right to make my own “Cadillac.”  I mean, it is MY effort that is going into bringing THIS “Cadillac” into existence, not the men and women at the GM plant.

     

    On the other hand, I would not feel comfortable calling it a Cadillac, and selling it as such, despite the fact it can be identical in every way, as I would be deceiving the purchaser of his perceived quality assurance that he/she is accustomed, or expects, from GM built Cadillacs. 

     

    If it is clear as to who made the product, I see no problem in the replication and the distribution of the replicated, either.

     

    Analogy time:

     

    If I build a house that looks just like a house built by a housing development company, the only thing I can’t do is sell it as a house built by that housing development company. 

     

    A person, who digs into the side of a mountain/hill in order to create for him/herself shelter, used his/her intellect/abilities to do so.  Should I be forbidden from making a similar shelter because I didn’t come up with the idea first?  I know that this analogy is technologically inferior to, say, MP3s or a modern house, but it holds.

     
    If one is not willing to build a cave due to not being the inventor, then you must be willing to stand out in the cold.  I, for one, am not willing to do so.   



    Post 5

    Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 7:00pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Fountain Head,

    Thanks for the nice comments. I think we are mostly in agreement.

    You said: I am not so sure about using a manufacturing concept (reproduce), which implies physicality, in conjunction with the reproduction of an idea, which, you state: “…have no physical qualities.”  If ideas have no physical qualities (I have no idea as to which sort of physical qualities ideas have, by the way) then just what is being reproduced?  Is reproduction of a non-physical entity possible?
     
    The confusion is my fault. The language in the paragraph you quoted is meant to reflect the language in the previous paragraph describing the nature of physical property, (for the sake of balanced construction). By, "reproduce," I had in mind the fact that an idea I have can be learned by any number of other people, thus being "reproduced," in the minds of every individual who learns it. Ideas only exist psychologically, that is in the consciousnesses of those who understand the ideas. An idea written down or expressed in drawings and formulas is not an idea, only so many marks on paper (or whatever medium it is recorded on). It is only when someone reads the written description or studies and understand the drawings or formulas that the recorded information becomes, in the strictest sense, and "idea."

    Now this surprised me, Although I do not agree with your “Ideas are not physical,” ... 

    I would be interested in what sense you think ideas are physical? Ayn Rand certainly did not think so, and you already know I do not think so.

    If it is clear as to who made the product, I see no problem in the replication and the distribution of the replicated, either.

    Certainly! And you were right to point out that it would be fraud if one attempted to deceive the buyer about the actual source of the product.

    Thanks again!

    Regi


    Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
    Post 6

    Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 6:50amSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Regi,

    First, I have a question.  You said:
     Property consists of physical existents which can be counted or measured. Property consist of physical goods made from physical substances or components.
    Why is this the correct definition of "property"?  It's not my definition, it's not the dictionary's definition, and it's not Rand's defintion.  Where does this definition come from?

    Second, I have a comment.  You said:
     If someone else decides to publish the book, they cannot possibly make a profit if the author (or someone else) has already published the book and the market is saturated. To sell any books, the new publisher must offer something the original publisher does not, like a lower price, or larger print, or he must offer it to a market the original publisher has not reached. There is nothing to prevent the original publisher from doing whatever the new publisher intends to do, before the new publisher does it.
    You have completely ignored the non-production costs of the book.  The new publisher can offer a lower price because he doesn't have to recoup the costs of: the writer, the referees, the editing, the advertising, etc.  All he has to do is print the book and sell it. 

    Another example: Big Drugs, Inc. spends ten years and $50 million designing a new drug, doing animal studies, etc.  They market their new drug, with the price determined by, among other things, the cost of developing the drug.  Along comes Fly By Night Drugs, Inc.  They buy a bottle of the drug and it is now their property.  They do a chemical analysis and determine the contents of the drug.  It's really easy to duplicate (the cost of the development of the drug was in the idea of how the drug would work, along with the cost of the clinical trials, not in the manufacture).  So, they duplicate the drug in mass quantities and market it. And those silly consumers buy the cheaper product, which is identical to the "brand name" product but costs much less.

     Without patent laws, this would be a perfectly legal and practical way to do business.  All the parasites would have to do is sit back and wait for someone to expend the effort required to come up with, and develop, a new idea, and then they could duplicate it.  The problem is, who's going to do the hard work when the market allows the looters to flourish?

    Thanks,
    Glenn.


    Post 7

    Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit

    Hello, Regi and gang.

     

    I’ve been checking in every so often because I promised Rodney I would read his exposition on consciousness and volition when he posted it.  In doing so, I caught this interesting conversation about copyrights and patents.  As an inventor, manufacturer, and published author this is subject of importance to me, so I’ll add my two cents.

     

    Regi stated:  >>Property consists of physical existents which can be counted or measured. Property consist of physical goods made from physical substances or components.<<

     

    Astounded, Glenn demanded to know:  >>Why is this the correct definition of "property"?  It's not my definition, it's not the dictionary's definition, and it's not Rand's defintion.  Where does this definition come from?<<

     

    Well, Regi gave you not so much a definition of property as a generic description of it, and it is on the mark.  Property by its nature must be capable of possession – i.e., you must be able exclude others from your claim to call it property.  Regi’s point is commonsensical:  Only physical things are inherently capable of possession by exclusion.  (Wealth is included in Regi’s description even after it has been translated into money, because its origin is physical and so it retains the quality of measurability.)

     

    However, to possess something that is non-physical requires an artifice, such as a patent, which furnishes, through the force of government, a non-physical entity with the quality of excludability that it by nature lacks.  It is only by the threat of force that a non-physical entity can be possessed to the exclusion of all others.  Real estate can be fenced off, and personal property can be locked up.  Because of their physical nature and nothing more, they can have only one owner at a time.  But it is only the threat of civil suit or perhaps prosecution that prevents a patented idea from having more than one owner.  (Yes, I understand that an idea must be proven with a working model to be eligible for a patent, but it isn’t the model a patent protects, but the concept of it.)

     

    So a patent is a monopoly over an idea that the government creates and enforces where no such monopoly naturally exists.  It is no coincidence that the origin of the modern patent is in the authority of monarchs to award a subject a monopoly over a commodity or a trade.  The evolution of mercantilism into capitalism eliminated the use of the patent for the most obnoxious sorts of monopoly, but the patent is still going strong when it comes to the monopoly of an idea.

     

    Thus, Regi’s description of property makes a fundamental distinction.  That which is physical (or originated in physicality) can be property naturally.  That which is non-physical can be property only through artificial creation by the government.  So the question is:  Should the government have the power to create artificial property?

     

    Glenn then complains about reverse-engineering:  >>Without patent laws, this would be a perfectly legal and practical way to do business.  All the parasites would have to do is sit back and wait for someone to expend the effort required to come up with, and develop, a new idea, and then they could duplicate it.  The problem is, who's going to do the hard work when the market allows the looters to flourish?<<

     

    Since when is reverse-engineering a picnic?  Who is truly the looter?  The manufacturer who wants the government to police its control over its designs and methods, or the manufacturer who protects its ideas by itself through trade secret?  For a century anyone who has wanted to can try to reverse-engineer Coca-Cola (and many have), but they have all failed because the owners of Coke have jealously guarded its formula.  However, the effort to copy Coke has provided the market with a wide variety of colas to satisfy every taste out there.  Had Coke been protected by a patent, everyone would have known exactly what the formula was, and I must wonder if Coke and cola would be synonymous today.

     

    A patent is mischief because what it truly gives a person a monopoly upon is a discovery – i.e., a discovery of applied science.  Being the discoverer of an application of science may well merit our honor and respect, but not our acquiescence to a government-mandated privilege to make good on that discovery.  Science progresses because we do not, for the most part, let the government obstruct the transmission of ideas and discovery.  Would engineering also move forward with the speed of science if we didn’t bog it down with a patchwork of monopolies upon ideas and discoveries?  Maybe, maybe not.  One of the big disadvantages of a patent is that you must disclose everything about your idea.  That gives a lot of people a big leg up when it comes to reverse-engineering variations on the idea that fall outside the protection of the patent.  That’s one reason why trade secret is a much better way to go if you have a truly unique idea that you are capable of producing.

     

    All I know is that the power of patent is a dubious proposition from all perspectives, which shouldn’t be surprising in light of the fact that it is a purely government creation.  Yet, it remains a power of the government, which like all government authority is subject to abuse.  We now have the “look and feel” of software being patented.  We also have genes and molecules getting patent protection.  How far is that from patented discoveries of pure science?  Not much if at all.  How long before favored interests get the government to abuse patents on their behalf as much as copyright has been in the interests of big media companies like Disney?  How ludicrous is the idea that a person’s image can be copyright protected?

     

    My point is that we should only accord government power as is absolutely necessary, because it will end up being abused.  Therefore, we should limit what it can abuse.  Patents certainly are not necessary to our well-being.

     

    Copyright, however, is a different story.  While I object to its current abuse by extending copyright laws to protect interests far beyond that of the originator, art is distinct from discovery.  A work of art is created, not discovered.  While any idea is subject to discovery by anyone, a work of art is produced only by its creator.  I cannot quite put my finger upon the underlying principle, but even if patents are foolishness, there is an injustice in denying an artist the benefit of his work.  After all, when I buy a book, I am not buying the paper it is printed on, but the author’s composition.

     

    I’ll be interested in seeing if Regi thinks my distinction between creation and discovery is valid, and if so, why copyright laws are still unjust.

     

    Regards,

    Bill


    Post 8

    Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Glenn, Bill,

    First, Glenn, after quoting my description of property, you asked a question:

    "Property consists of physical existents which can be counted or measured. Property consist of physical goods made from physical substances or components."   Why is this the correct definition of "property"? It's not my definition, it's not the dictionary's definition, and it's not Rand's definition. Where does this definition come from?

    Bill has correctly answered this (since he beat me with his post). Since I already started this response, however, I will add, it is not a definition, it is a description.

    I do not think Ayn Rand actually defined property, but she had a great deal to say about, "property rights," Including this:

    "Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others; it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." ["Man Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, Page 94.]

    Note, it is not ideas, but material values. (Sometimes, Ayn Rand was inconsistent; the "intellectual" property concept is an example.)

    Then, about my book illustration you said:

    You have completely ignored the non-production costs of the book. The new publisher can offer a lower price because he doesn't have to recoup the costs of: the writer, the referees, the editing, the advertising, etc. All he has to do is print the book and sell it.

    I suspect you are not very familiar with the publishing business. No one can just, "print the book and sell it." It is nearly as expensive, possibly more expensive, to copy a book, prepare it for what method of printing and binding is to be used, finding vendors who will stock it, delivering the product, as well as, promoting and advertising one's own version of the book. But even if one really could just, "print the book and sell it," there is no assurance he will sell any. If the originally publisher is satisfying the demand of the market, how is the new publisher going to sell any books? If the original publisher is not satisfying the demand of the market, why shouldn't the product be available to those who prefer the new publisher's version?

    You provided another example:

    Big Drugs, Inc. spends ten years and $50 million designing a new drug, doing animal studies, etc. They market their new drug, with the price determined by, among other things, the cost of developing the drug. Along comes Fly By Night Drugs, Inc. ... they duplicate the drug in mass quantities and market it. And those silly consumers buy the cheaper product, which is identical to the "brand name" product but costs much less.

    The drug companies may determine their price in any way they please. They may attempt to recoup the cost of development of a drug. If that is their intention, it is not this just the current drug, but many other drugs, also researched and developed that never reached the market, because they did not perform as expected, or more likely, did not receive FDA approval. However, research costs is not how most drug companies (if any) set drug prices. They are set based on production costs, and their estimate of what the market will bear. They set the price as high as they possibly can, and they ought to.

    Research and development always entails risk. There are no guarantees. In addition to the fact no one may be interested in the product, the intended product just may never perform as intended, the intended product may be outlawed (as non-approved drugs are), or another company may produce a different product that satisfies whatever market demand there is for the kind of product being developed. Reality does not guarantee a return on research and development investments. Government enforced patent monopolies are an attempt to provide such guarantees, but it must be done by using force to prevent others from entering the market, which is a coercive monopoly.

    Without patent laws, this would be a perfectly legal and practical way to do business. All the parasites would have to do is sit back and wait for someone to expend the effort required to come up with, and develop, a new idea, and then they could duplicate it. The problem is, who's going to do the hard work when the market allows the looters to flourish?

    Yes, that is true, without patent laws, it would be perfectly legal for anyone to attempt to produce and sell any product they could, without regard to how they learned to do it; it was already perfectly moral to do that. Eliminating the patent laws would just make what is already moral also legal.

    That is what is wrong with your argument. It is purely utilitarian, not moral. Without patent laws, your argument assumes, no one will invest in developing the products that are good for everyone, therefore, creating coercive monopolies is justified. But, there is no moral justification for coercive monopolies, even if it means there would be less development of good products. Objectivism rejects the utilitarian source of values based on the "greatest good for the greatest number," principle.

    Since Bill has already addressed the "reverse-engineering" aspects of your argument, and I agree with his explanation, I will not add to it.

    As for Bill's question about the difference between discovery and creation, I will address it in a separate post to Bill.

    Regi



    Post 9

    Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    You guys right a lot! Let me just hit on a few points.

    Property, at least in the eyes of the law, is not restricted to material objects. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. In law, property is viewed as a bundle of rights, and rights are just claims of specific action (or inaction) in relation to certain objects. So technically, the law would say that we don't own, say, land, only rights in relation to the land. And similarly, we can have rights to services. Ex. if I pay someone to mow my lawn, then I have a right to their mowing it. It's a right to exclusive use of certain action (not an object)...very similar to intellectual property rights.

    The difference is that a material object can be depleted, so can an action, whilst an idea cannot. There's a persuasive argument out there that we should allocate a right only in relation to objects that are of limited supply. After all, if they were in abundance (or if very few people were willing and able to act in relation to them), then why would we bother allocating rights for these objects? It'd be a waste of time.

    So why have intellectual property rights? We want to retain the incentive for original creation, while not overly hindering competitive markets. This is rather Pragmatic, but I imagine Rand would sympathize. Rand's "Patents and Copyrights" found in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal seems to encourage this Pragmatic approach, which I'm surprised discussers here thus far have not mentioned. <shrug>. Michael Smith's post reflected several sentiments outlined in that article, so perhaps it wasn't necessary to site. But even though Rand (and possibly Michael) would approve of this reason, I'm not sure it's compatiable with other aspects of O'ism.

    Waddya think?

    Jordan


    Post 10

    Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 6:50pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    I’ve been checking in every so often because I promised Rodney I would read his exposition on consciousness and volition when he posted it. 
    That's a relief, Bill. I hate preaching to the converted.

    My delay is merely due to limited time and bouts of sloth--a deadly "sin" in anyone's book.



    Post 11

    Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Hi Bill,

    First, thank you for the nice comments. I thought you might be interested in this subject--nicely controversial but without the usual emotional content, and certainly a basic Objectivist premise that is highly questionable.

    It is also interesting that we mostly agree, although it does not surprise me.

    Now, it seems to me you have made two points, but only asked one specific question about the difference between discovery and creation.

    You said:

    Copyright, however, is a different story.  While I object to its current abuse by extending copyright laws to protect interests far beyond that of the originator, art is distinct from discovery.  A work of art is created, not discovered.  While any idea is subject to discovery by anyone, a work of art is produced only by its creator.  I cannot quite put my finger upon the underlying principle, but even if patents are foolishness, there is an injustice in denying an artist the benefit of his work.  After all, when I buy a book, I am not buying the paper it is printed on, but the author’s composition.

     

    I’ll be interested in seeing if Regi thinks my distinction between creation and discovery is valid, and if so, why copyright laws are still unjust.

     

     

    Regi does agree that discovery and creation are distinct. Technically one cannot patent a discovery but as you pointed out, the patenting of certain gene patterns is getting very close to discovery verses creation. I do not agree that most physical patents are discovery, however. They are primarily applications of scientific principles, which application is called technology.

     

    I do not think this difference between creation and discovery applies to your real question, however. You said: I cannot quite put my finger upon the underlying principle, but even if patents are foolishness, there is an injustice in denying an artist the benefit of his work.  After all, when I buy a book, I am not buying the paper it is printed on, but the author’s composition.

     

    I think part of your concern, and the reason you cannot quite put your finger on it, is a very normal reaction to the facts, especially if you happen to be an author--"I know the hours of effort and creative energy that went into creating this book, dammit; why should some copy-cat punk cashing in on my effort be able to deprive me of the profit I could otherwise make?" (I assume this is what you mean by benefit of his [the artist's] work, since copyrights would not protect any other kind of benefit.)

     

    The answer is, in the real world, there is no such thing as a "profit I could otherwise make," there is only the profit you can and do make. You might write a book that is Objectively and artistically superior to Hugo, Dostoevsky, and Rand put together; but if no one is interested in it (because public education, for example, has been completely successful in achieving its goals and no child has been left behind), you will have no profit. No matter how many hours of effort and creative energy you put into a book, if nobody wants it, all the copyrights in the world will not earn you one penny.

     

    Copyrights only matter if a book is successful and sells well. Books that don't sell do not need to be protected, because no one is going to be interested in copying and printing them. But if a book sells well enough to tempt others to copy and print it, it has already made a profit for the author. Copyrights are only an attempt to make more profit, by coercively preventing others from entering the market.

     

    But, if it is profitable to the copy-cats to print additional copies of the book, it would be profitable to the original publisher as well. If the copy-cat's version is cheaper, the original publisher has an advantage over the copy-cats, he already has the original, already has a developed market, and already has the "tooling" to produce the book, which probably only needs modifications to produce a less expensive version.

     

    You said, After all, when I buy a book, I am not buying the paper it is printed on, but the author’s composition.

     

    But, in fact, you are only buying the paper, the binding, and the ink-spots--the "author's composition," is entirely conceptual, and exists, originally in the mind of the author, and subsequently in the minds of anyone who reads (interprets the ink-spot correctly) the book. There are no "ideas" in the printed book, The book is only a means of transmitting the ideas that comprise the "author's composition," by means of symbols which another mind can interpret and understand. The ideas are not in the book, only the symbols. That is why it can be translated, all of the symbols being entirely different, and still be the "same" book.

     

    The book, the binding, and the ink-spots comprise a physical entity which can be property. The ideas the ink-spots symbolize, are not physical, and cannot be property.

     

    That's my take.

     

    Regi

     


     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Post 12

    Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 8:49pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    O.K, I don't have the energy to follow Robert's good suggestions at the moment, so at the moment I'm going to post a very quick'n'dirty summary of the problems I have with Objectivism.  I intend to come back to it later on and try to expand upon it and come up with proper reasoned arguments.  Consider my summary as a 'teaser'.  For some of the 'problem areas' I have included a link to a paper by an expert academic philosopher by the name of Robert Bass.  These papers give detailed arguments, and I highly recommend reading them!  

    Just a note:  I do agree I take Reason as an absolute.  It seems to me that this is indeed the needed starting point for any reasoned debate. 

    Summary of Objectivist problem areas

    Epistemology: 

    Foundationalism:  Logic doesn't need foundational laws.  It can simply be an interconnected web of self-supporting non-hierarchical facts.

    Certainty:  Since humans are always operating off incomplete information, we can't know whether we have properly specified a given 'Context' or not.  Thus it won't do to try to dismiss some possibilities as 'arbitrary'.  So there's no certainty, not even contextual.

    Of course it would be contradictory to claim:

    'I am certain that certainty is impossible'

    but I am not claiming this.  What I am claiming is that I think it is very likely that certainty is impossible. The actual statement I made on SOLO a while ago was as follows:

    'I am 98% sure that certainty is impossible'

    There is nothing contradictory about this statement.  It is logically sound, as even a person with a high-school knowledge of philosophy could tell you.

    Expert papers: 

    "Foundationalism, Skepticism, Coherentism"
    Link:   http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/coherence.html

    "Objectivist Epistemology: Strengths and Weaknesses"
    Link:  http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/itoe.html



    Ethics:

    The Survival Imperative:  Trying to take the survival imperative as the foundation of ethics is again is a hierarchical view of ethics.  But ethics doesn't need to be a hierarchy.  It can simply be a network of competing values, which we rank according to costs/benefits in any given situation.  There are trade-offs and the survival imperative is only one value out of many.   So it makes no sense to take it as the foundation of ethics.

    Rational Self-Interest:  In circumstances where there an interaction between a very powerful person and a much weaker person, it isn't clear why it wouldn't be in the rational self-interest of the stronger party to exploit the weaker.  It won't do for Objectivists to glibly claim that: 'there are no rational conflicts of interest', because this is simply an unproven postulate.  Rand was using a 'straw man' definition of altruism, which does not conform to the definition that sensible 'rational altruists' use.  Altruism can be defined as helping others to get what they want without self-sacrifice.  There is no reason for believing the Objectivist ethics, and every reason for disbelieving it.  In fact the evidence points to 'Rational altruism' as the proper ethics: the exact opposite of what Rand thought. 

    Expert paper:

     "What's Wrong With Egoism?"
    Link:  http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/egoism.html


    Liberty and Self-Interest:  Rand's politics looks sound (Minarchist Libertarianism) but not her justification for it.  Capitalism is actually based on individual liberty , not self-interest as such.  Liberty does not imply self-interest.  it just means that people should be free to do what they want, as long as they are not hurting anyone else.  But this is just as compatible with altruism.  For instance a person may freely choose to give some of their property away.


    Expert paper:

    'The Rights (and Wrongs) of Ayn Rand'
    Link:  http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/rand.html


    Post 13

    Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 2:57amSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Hello all,

    The copyright debate is a subject which I find interesting, and one on which I have mixed feelings - as I said over on Andrew's CD copyright thread, I agree with the principle of copyright (i.e. a creator's rights over his work) but not with some of what is done to enforce it.

    What would you all think to the idea of "copyright" being defended purely by contractual mechanisms? So when someone purchases a book/CD/DVD or whatever they agree not to copy or make use of the "art work" contained  therein. This would have loopholes in that there would be no obvious recourse against someone who had received copies from someone violating the agreement.

    By the way just as a point of interest, there's a fascinating story of how JRR Tolkien enforced his rights over Lord Of The Rings in the USA despite problems with the US government copyright laws of that time giving him no legal recourse. He wrote to his American fans and other interested parties explaining that there was an unauthorised edition on the market, for which he was receiving no royalties. This in effect instigated a boycott of the edition in question an resulted in its withdrawal from sale.


    Post 14

    Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:02amSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Regi-
     
    When I said, "Their argument was, they had spent all the time and effort writing the book, others were profiting from their time and effort without compensating them for it. In other words, their argument was the Marxist argument, the value of there work was determined by their effort," you said, "This was not an argument about the value of the book ...," but that is the very argument you are now making. It is "preposterous to say ... Edison deserves no more right to the invention of the lightbulb," why? Because, "he spent thousands of man-hours in experimentation, identifying a material for the filament, determining the type of glass for the bulb, and designing a configuration that would work." But what is the patent protection for? to make sure he doesn't for get what he invented, or, to make sure he is able to make the amount of money he ought to because he put so much work into it.

     
     The purpose of reviewing what Edison went through was to point out that an invention involves more than a mere thought that pops into one's head. It involves an act of creation and, properly, that creation belongs to the creator, whether its ultimate value is small or large.

    What you propose is that if I spend ten years and all my money inventing the airplane (as the Wright Brothers did), then all I really own is that particular airplane and any others I may care to produce.

    What you propose is that from that moment forward every other human being on the planet has an equal right to my design and an equal right to sell as many as they wish.

    What you propose is that I, the creator, who put forth all the effort, who spent all the money, must now compete with any parasite that choses to sit on the sideline and wait for me to finish.

    Furthermore, what you propose is that I compete at a disadvantage relative to the parasite. I have to recover an enormous investment -- the parasite does not. By virtue of the fact that the parasite spent nothing, he has an immediate cost advantage.

    What you propose is that my reward for creating something of enormous value to mankind is to face the possibility of being put out of business by every Tom, Dick and Harry that did not create anything.

    What you propose is that a stick carved into a toothpick by a moron qualifies as property, but a design conceived by a genius does not. The moron has an inalienable right to his toothpick, but once the genius reveals his design it belongs to the world.

    And your justification for this is, "Oh well, tough luck, investment always involves risk. Don't complain about the profits you didn't make, because, well, they don't exist."

    "After all, why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?"

    What you propose is a vicious injustice.

    Justice demands that a distinction be made between a creator and a copier, between an innovator and a parasite. Justice further demands that any value created by the creator belongs to him, not the copier.  Intellectual property law provides that justice.



    P.S.

    ... but can you name me a single , significant market with only one supplier ...


    Viagra, Cipro, and thousands of others
    .


    Viagra now competes with Levitra, and it has always competed with implants. Cipro is only one of countless antibiotics available. The only "market" that it exclusively addresses is anthrax treatment where it was arbitrarily designated as the drug of choice, and that exclusivity is based on an FDA marketing exclusive, not a patent. The patent is expired. So you are wrong on both of those. What are the thousands of others?


    Post 15

    Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:14amSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Marc
     
    So there's no certainty, not even contextual.
    Are you certain of this?



    Post 16

    Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:02amSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Mike & Regi:
     
    Mike complained to Regi:  >>What you propose is that if I spend ten years and all my money inventing the airplane (as the Wright Brothers did), then all I really own is that particular airplane and any others I may care to produce.

    What you propose is that from that moment forward every other human being on the planet has an equal right to my design and an equal right to sell as many as they wish.<<

     
    Regi proposed no such thing.  You have no obligation to reveal your design to the public.  (A competitor seeing your finished product is hardly the same as having possession of your design data.)  In fact, I would suggest that you don't.  The patent process requires you to publicly reveal your design from the outset, which gives your competitors a leg up regardless of patent protection.  Trade secret law lets you keep your design confidential forever.
     
    All Regi is saying is that you should not have the right to use the force of government to stop another person from producing a product like yours if he can figure out how to do it.  A prospect that is easier said than done.
     
    Regards,
    Bill


    Post 17

    Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    The raison d'être of this thread as reflected in its title has already been violated—see posts 32 and 33 of the previous thread where this one was suggested, "A modest proposal." If Marc Geddes does not agree that reason and logic are absolutes, is there any more to say here? [Edit: I've just noticed that in a post above, he states that he does agree to take reason as an absolute. But in a past thread, in defense of the same views we are discussing here, he explictly rejected the abolutism of logic. Since logic is integral to reason, this is a contradiction. But contradictions are what logic is about, and he rejects logic, so he is being consistent. Do you see how he is only "coherent" in the sense mentioned in my last paragraph?]

    In any case, this ground has been covered before. Marc and I ended our own discussion at the point where he agreed that man is conscious, "but not of reality." I lacked the opportunity and will to continue. I would have said, echoing Rand, that consciousness is not a passive state, but an active process (involving differentiation and integration), and that consciousness is always consciousness of something.

    In a sense, Marc is correct in saying his position of universal uncertainty is completely coherent/consistent. But only because such a position consists in deliberately downgrading the level of one's entire field of awareness to a certain degree of fogginess by sheer dint of will. No matter how you show such a thinker is contradicting himself, he can reply that he is not convinced of the truth of one or the other side of the contradiction, nor indeed of logic itself. In the same sense, a person who is comatose is epistemologically coherent/consistent--he is merely not conscious to a certain degree (completely).

    (Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/13, 5:51pm)


    Post 18

    Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit

    Greetings, Jordan, Rodney, Regi, and Matthew.

     

    Jordan, you wrote: >>Property, at least in the eyes of the law, is not restricted to material objects. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. In law, property is viewed as a bundle of rights, and rights are just claims of specific action (or inaction) in relation to certain objects. So technically, the law would say that we don't own, say, land, only rights in relation to the land. And similarly, we can have rights to services. Ex. if I pay someone to mow my lawn, then I have a right to their mowing it. It's a right to exclusive use of certain action (not an object)...very similar to intellectual property rights.<<

     

    Well, it’s true our solons, when in a positivist bent, can enact anything into law.  Ideally what they should restrict lawmaking to is the protection and enforcement of our rights.  In turn our rights define the prerogatives that are naturally ours as human beings to enjoy life as each of us sees fit.  Thus, good law is rooted in what is true to our human nature.

     

    For example, we can naturally possess physical things, because once we have it we can exclude others from it.  It’s that simple: Two people cannot have possession of the same object at the same time.  Similarly, in regard to land, only one person can exercise dominion over the same parcel at the same time.  (Yes, things can be possessed by more than one person in agreement with others, but the fact that we need to reduce such group possession to a singular entity like a joint tenancy, a partnership, or a corporation supports the point I am making.)  So, by nature we are capable of exclusive possession of physical things.

     

    Therefore, we have a natural right to possess land and objects that we have earned a claim to – i.e., we have the right of property.  You’re correct that common law recognizes this right as ownership, therefore ownership legally means a person’s collection of rights to use, transfer, or destroy an article of property to the exclusion of all other people.  Thus, the law makes possible the translation of the tangible possession of a physical thing into an intangible right to mortgage, bequeath, option, or otherwise exploit one’s ownership of property without surrendering its possession.

     

    However, the fact that what is physical can manifest through the law intangible rights, does not mean what is inherently intangible in the first place, like an idea, can also be property – except by the positivist declarations of our legislators that it is.  In the real world A is always A, but under the capitol domes of this fine land of ours, A can be almost anything – for instance, an idea can be property.

     

    Rodney says:  >>That's a relief, Bill. I hate preaching to the converted.<<

     

    I know, but it’ll still do the lads some good, Rodney.

     

    Regi had some comments about the distinction I was making between creation and discovery and therefore my belief in the validity of copyright and the invalidity of patents.

     

    I said: >>I do not think this difference between creation and discovery applies to your real question, however. You said: I cannot quite put my finger upon the underlying principle, but even if patents are foolishness, there is an injustice in denying an artist the benefit of his work.  After all, when I buy a book, I am not buying the paper it is printed on, but the author’s composition.<<

     

    You responded:  >>I think part of your concern, and the reason you cannot quite put your finger on it, is a very normal reaction to the facts, especially if you happen to be an author--"I know the hours of effort and creative energy that went into creating this book, dammit; why should some copy-cat punk cashing in on my effort be able to deprive me of the profit I could otherwise make?" (I assume this is what you mean by benefit of his [the artist's] work, since copyrights would not protect any other kind of benefit.)<<

     

    While I understand the sentiment (and no doubt would feel it if I had something more at stake than a few modest technical works), the gut reaction I was referring to is my squeamishness at profiting from a work of art I did not produce without paying the artist.

     

    I don’t have the same problem when it comes to reverse-engineering.  That takes a hell of a lot of work to do a precise knock-off, and as a practical matter, what happens is usually an improvement upon the product or its manufacture so that you can compete by making it either better or faster or cheaper.  Besides, as a practical matter, it is next to impossible to say who originated most ideas.  All new ideas rest upon old ones, and who’s to say what is truly new and what is not.  (Oh yes, I forgot.  The geniuses at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office!)

     

    I look at a lot of things in my industry and I think, “Oh yeah, I would’ve thought of that if I had put my attention to it”, or even, “Hey, I did think of that already!”  So I’m not impressed by the fact that someone got to the patent office’s door first.  (And that people have this option, sometimes forces us who don't want the protection to still pursue a patent to prevent someone else from claiming a monopoly upon the idea.)   I cannot believe that there exists any invention that could not have been independently discovered by another.  (Indeed, that’s why the vast majority of patent applications are rejected, and vast majority of new ideas that do become products never even bother with the patent process.)

     

    But that’s not true of a work of art.  While it’s true in a way that there’s nothing new under the sun when it comes to a story (that is, the idea of a book or movie), the particular composition an author produces is unique to his effort to tell that story.  No one can honestly say he would’ve composed a story he has read the same way.  Similarly?  On occasion, I suppose.  But not the same.  The creation of a work of art is unique unlike the discovery of new idea can never be.  Hence, my support of copyright.

     

    Now, I do agree with you, Regi, that as a practical matter I think the market would re-organize itself in a non-copyright world in a manner that would still reward the artist.  Without copyrights, painters and sculptors will always enjoy the reward of having produced the original work.  Publishers need content and are not going to eliminate the incentives authors need to write.  Software companies will withhold support for knock-off versions of their products.  I’m not so sure about singers, musicians, and filmmakers – but then when everyone can do Hollywood out of his garage within a couple of decades, maybe the big buck market for these types of works is about to disappear anyway under a tidal wave of do-it-yourselvers.  (There is a lot of talent between New York and L.A.)

     

    But I haven’t thought out the possibilities of all this to persuade myself that copyright is nothing more than utilitarian.  Your thoughts, as always, on what a non-copyright market would look like are of interest.

     

    Matthew posed the idea: >>What would you all think to the idea of "copyright" being defended purely by contractual mechanisms?<<

     

    You know, that may be the right path.  Get the government out of the business of policing knock-offs of an artist’s work.  In principle I don’t have a problem with making an agreement not to copy a condition of sale of an artist’s work.  I suppose it could contain a covenant like those attached to real estate that bind future owners of the work.  However, I do think that because such restrictions lack the explicit consent of the buyer, such agreements would not be valid if they are not as a practical matter enforceable.  (This would be akin to a blockade, the declaration of which is invalid under the rules of war if it is not enforceable.)

     

    Whatever way the law would work this out, perhaps private contract can replace government-mandated copyright.  After all, look how badly the copyright law is now abused, with rights being retained by successors decades after the death of the originator and its application to things are not created in any meaningful sense, such as an actor’s image or voice.

     

    Regards,

    Bill


    Post 19

    Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit

    Replies to: Reginald, Marc, and Michael.

     

    Reginald:

     

    Q: In what sense do I take ideas to be physical? 

     

    A: I’m not sure?  I just can’t get over the idea that an idea is, in some way, shape or form, not physical.  My reasoning: if it exists, it’s physical :-).  I take it that ideas exist, as I do have them. 

     

    An admission: I had been for intellectual property rights until I read your article.  

     

     

    Marc:

     

    From the essay "Foundationalism, Skepticism, Coherentism"

     

    Those who would doubt that every triangle is three-sided may all be or belong in mental institutions - but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

     

    Marc, the problem with this argument is that a triangle is a word that represents a particular shape—one with three sides.  There may be people, who think that there are triangles with more than three sides, but as defined (triangles), those people are incorrect.

     

    These people are incorrect for the following reasons: A) that we are able to perceive distinctions in existence, B) were we not able to perceive distinctions in existence, we would not be able to say that we perceive any particular things, and C) the words we invent represent these distinctively perceived things that constitute existence. 

     

    I would like to know which shape a more-than three-sided triangle holds. 

     

    The ONLY problem that may arise from this is an English comprehension one—does the person know what “tri” means?  Does the person know what “side” means?  If this person is able to understand what these concepts mean, then there can be no doubt about there only being three-sided triangles. 

     

    I’m amazed that this is from a philosophy department from an accredited university. 

     


    And just what exactly is it to be “98% certain?”  If you’re 98% certain, then you are certain about that, right? 



     

    Michael:

     

    Great reply!  I love the fervour.  I especially like the following:

     

    What you propose is that a stick carved into a toothpick by a moron qualifies as property, but a design conceived by a genius does not. The moron has an inalienable right to his toothpick, but once the genius reveals his design it belongs to the world.

     

    I’m also glad to see that you didn’t use my “hole carved into the side of a hill” as example of what a moron is able to do, that qualifies as property.

     

    But let’s suppose the moron drew a diagram of his idea of a toothpick, initialled it, and then put it away for safe keeping.  Now, suppose that I find said piece of paper, and give it a once-over, consequently supplanting the idea in MY head.  How can the moron claim ownership of what exists in MY head?  It’s my head!  And so is everything in it (though it has been argued that there isn’t all that much in there).

     

    What is interesting here is that I oughtn’t be able to bring into existence a design, that I did not create, but that I am able to bring into existence the product of  (that which represents the design) design.  That is to say, if it now exists in the non-design context, I can make my own. 

     

    It is as though you are suggesting that there is some difference in the means by which I know of both (a design and a product)?

     

    I know both via sense faculties.   

     
    I take plumbing to be ingenious.  I certainly am not going to not have a plumbed house because I didn’t invent it.  And if I know how to plumb a house, and some other person wants me to plumb their house, I certainly will do it, for a fee, of course.   
     
     


    Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


    User ID Password or create a free account.