This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I do dogmatically assume what is mine is mine, and that includes IP.

And I agree. Your ideas are your ideas. If you don't want to share that idea, keep it in your head, and only in your head.

As soon as that idea is in my head, it becomes my idea as well, to do with as I see fit, and neither of us can rightfully prevent the other from doing whatever he wants with that idea.

As Jefferson put it, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement?  All I ask is a legal (non-state) guarantee that if my idea is profitable, that I be able to profit from it.

[myrkul]

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement? 

You're welcome to prevent your employees - contractually - from divulging trade secrets, even your customers, if you can get them to agree. You just don't have any third party enforceability.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement? 

You're welcome to prevent your employees - contractually - from divulging trade secrets, even your customers, if you can get them to agree. You just don't have any third party enforceability.

***But that's not fair!  wah!***

Anyway,
That issue is between my, my customers, and my arbitration company.

[Mike Christ]

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement? 

You're welcome to prevent your employees - contractually - from divulging trade secrets, even your customers, if you can get them to agree. You just don't have any third party enforceability.

***But that's not fair!  wah!***

Anyway,
That issue is between my, my customers, and my arbitration company.

Your arbitration company would have to agree with other arbitration companies that IP is a-OK, which would imply all of society would be cool with IP.  However, if your arbitration company is the only one in the biz who thinks it's right, they'll not be in business long, as the other arbitration companies will believe you and your company are making an attempt at extortion of innocent people.

[kokjo]

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement? 

You're welcome to prevent your employees - contractually - from divulging trade secrets, even your customers, if you can get them to agree. You just don't have any third party enforceability.

***But that's not fair!  wah!***

Anyway,
That issue is between my, my customers, and my arbitration company.

Your arbitration company would have to agree with other arbitration companies that IP is a-OK, which would imply all of society would be cool with IP.  However, if your arbitration company is the only one in the biz who thinks it's right, they'll not be in business long, as the other arbitration companies will believe you and your company are making an attempt at extortion of innocent people.

i guess it depends on what ever you see a violation of IP as a violation of property. Is IP violation a aggression?

[myrkul]

i guess it depends on what ever you see a violation of IP as a violation of property.

That would require IP to be property. Which would require it to be scarce. Which it is not. So it is not.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement? 

You're welcome to prevent your employees - contractually - from divulging trade secrets, even your customers, if you can get them to agree. You just don't have any third party enforceability.

***But that's not fair!  wah!***

Anyway,
That issue is between my, my customers, and my arbitration company.

Your arbitration company would have to agree with other arbitration companies that IP is a-OK, which would imply all of society would be cool with IP.  However, if your arbitration company is the only one in the biz who thinks it's right, they'll not be in business long, as the other arbitration companies will believe you and your company are making an attempt at extortion of innocent people.

So, once again, it's a fight between innovators/producers and moochers/looters.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

i guess it depends on what ever you see a violation of IP as a violation of property.

That would require IP to be property. Which would require it to be scarce. Which it is not. So it is not.

I feel that being forced to conjure my lawnmower is a violation of my rights.  Scarcity is an invalid argument for private property.  Whats mine is mine, whether it's scarce or plentiful.

[myrkul]

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement? 

You're welcome to prevent your employees - contractually - from divulging trade secrets, even your customers, if you can get them to agree. You just don't have any third party enforceability.

***But that's not fair!  wah!***

Anyway,
That issue is between my, my customers, and my arbitration company.

Your arbitration company would have to agree with other arbitration companies that IP is a-OK, which would imply all of society would be cool with IP.  However, if your arbitration company is the only one in the biz who thinks it's right, they'll not be in business long, as the other arbitration companies will believe you and your company are making an attempt at extortion of innocent people.

So, once again, it's a fight between innovators/producers and moochers/looters.

The only question is, Which side are you on?

Both sides of this debate would consider the other to be a looter if it came down to actually implementing their policies.

I feel that being forced to conjure my lawnmower is a violation of my rights.  Scarcity is an invalid argument for private property.  Whats mine is mine, whether it's scarce or plentiful.

Then it comes down to which is a greater violation, your idea being copied, or you telling millions of people what they can and cannot do with their property.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Can I profit from it without sharing it?  If it takes millions to implement? 

You're welcome to prevent your employees - contractually - from divulging trade secrets, even your customers, if you can get them to agree. You just don't have any third party enforceability.

***But that's not fair!  wah!***

Anyway,
That issue is between my, my customers, and my arbitration company.

Your arbitration company would have to agree with other arbitration companies that IP is a-OK, which would imply all of society would be cool with IP.  However, if your arbitration company is the only one in the biz who thinks it's right, they'll not be in business long, as the other arbitration companies will believe you and your company are making an attempt at extortion of innocent people.

So, once again, it's a fight between innovators/producers and moochers/looters.

The only question is, Which side are you on?

Both sides of this debate would consider the other to be a looter if it came down to actually implementing their policies.

I feel that being forced to conjure my lawnmower is a violation of my rights.  Scarcity is an invalid argument for private property.  Whats mine is mine, whether it's scarce or plentiful.

Then it comes down to which is a greater violation, your idea being copied, or you telling millions of people what they can and cannot do with their property.

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

[myrkul]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

Then it behooves you to make your profit as quickly as possible, for your market share will not stay 100% for long.

[Mike Christ]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

Then it behooves you to make your profit as quickly as possible, for your market share will not stay 100% for long.

So is it immoral of me to try to maximize my profits by extorting folk who use MY idea to pay me a premium of some sort?  Without MY idea, they would be nowhere. Mine is Mine.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

If I make cash on their ideas, they can ask or sue me as they see fit.

[kokjo]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

[Mike Christ]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

If I make cash on their ideas, they can ask or sue me as they see fit.

Then you'd never make profit.  Now if someone takes your idea that you've yet to recoup your losses on, you can choose to sue him.  In the end, nobody's going anywhere, and the original patent holders make a killing.  It favors "firsties" and discourages innovation.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

Tell that to the patent trolls who do nothing but make insane profits from suing people who violate their IP.  There was a case recently which a company sued almost every online retailer for using the idea of an online shopping cart.  It wasn't until Newegg stood up to them that they finally knocked them down a peg and won their case.

[myrkul]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

Then it behooves you to make your profit as quickly as possible, for your market share will not stay 100% for long.

So is it immoral of me to try to maximize my profits by extorting folk who use MY idea to pay me a premium of some sort?  Without MY idea, they would be nowhere. Mine is Mine.

ex·tort  
/ikˈstôrt/
Verb
Obtain (something) by force, threats, or other unfair means.

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

What do you think?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

But what of everyone you've copied through research?  Are they not owed, as well?  If we're assuming IP is a thing, we also have to take into consideration the IP being stolen through any and all ideas, which are always based upon previous ideas.

at some point it becomes too expensive to defend your IP, and thus you stop defending it.

cost-benefit 101: is it beneficial to attack someone who have not attacked you first? yes, sometimes!

(and this is the point that myrkul fail to see...)

So, you would shoot at AnCaps before being shot at?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

Then it behooves you to make your profit as quickly as possible, for your market share will not stay 100% for long.

So is it immoral of me to try to maximize my profits by extorting folk who use MY idea to pay me a premium of some sort?  Without MY idea, they would be nowhere. Mine is Mine.

ex·tort  
/ikˈstôrt/
Verb
Obtain (something) by force, threats, or other unfair means.

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

What do you think?

LOL.  OK, Encourage, through use of force.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Indeed, it comes down to force, as it always does.  I don't care if people copy my stuff, as long as they don't infringe on my market share, at least until I've recouped my investment, plus some profit.

Then it behooves you to make your profit as quickly as possible, for your market share will not stay 100% for long.

So is it immoral of me to try to maximize my profits by extorting folk who use MY idea to pay me a premium of some sort?  Without MY idea, they would be nowhere. Mine is Mine.

ex·tort  
/ikˈstôrt/
Verb
Obtain (something) by force, threats, or other unfair means.

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

What do you think?

You are a 2A guy, you know that force exists and is a major part of how the world works.  Do you not see that many would use force as well?  I think that you deny the human factor, the perversity of things.  If an angelic whore trespasses on my land, who is the initiator of force?