Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

You keep on about slavery as if the prohibition to make a fizzy drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola was the same as being bound in chains to a galley oar for life.  Its not the same.

Actually, even without intellectual property laws, that would still be illegal. If you sell me Y and claim it's X, that's fraud. I'm the victim though, not Coca-Cola.

So you respect the right to buy and sell branded goods.  Thats trademarks.  

It's a word and the rules apply to it like any others. If you sell me "gasoline" but it's really water, that's fraud. If you sell me "Coca-Cola" but it's really Pepsi, that's fraud. It's a word which has a commonly understood meaning.

Its a trademark.  If there were no trademark, there would be no Coca-Cola brand as they would be no way to stop other people riding on the back on the Coca-Cola advertising. 

[1714288043]

1714288043

[1714288043]

1714288043

[1714288043]

1714288043

[1714288043]

1714288043

[1714288043]

1714288043

[FredericBastiat]

If thats all you want, we may well be in agreement   Lets do a quick test.  Right now, you have the right to set up a factory selling auto parts and but you are not allowed to call them "Ford" or "Toyota" 

Do you regard that as a breach of your property rights?

We are not in agreement, hence our discord on the subject of purported "intellectual" property claims. I want more freedoms not less (except to initiate aggression), ever.

Your example of me not being able to sell vehicles labeled however I choose is a breach of my property rights.

Notwithstanding the obviousness of that, iff I were to present a vehicle with specific identifying marks (i.e. labeled Ford), and my contract stated the vehicle's manufacture/creation were to originate only from Ford, and I did not deliver a vehicle from said Ford manufacturing plant, then I would be committing an act of fraud upon the other party.

[Hawker]

If thats all you want, we may well be in agreement   Lets do a quick test.  Right now, you have the right to set up a factory selling auto parts and but you are not allowed to call them "Ford" or "Toyota" 

Do you regard that as a breach of your property rights?

We are not in agreement, hence our discord on the subject of purported "intellectual" property claims. I want more freedoms not less (except to initiate aggression), ever.

Your example of me not being able to sell vehicles labeled however I choose is a breach of my property rights.

Notwithstanding the obviousness of that, iff I were to present a vehicle with specific identifying marks (i.e. labeled Ford), and my contract stated the vehicle's manufacture/creation were to originate only from Ford, and I did not deliver a vehicle from said Ford manufacturing plant, then I would be committing an act of fraud upon the other party.

So what?  They can't sure you as very few autoparts are worth £5000.  And your shoddy part may well kill them.  Sounds like freedom for you and tough luck for everyone else. 

So far, your "freedom" means that society can't have medical research and can't have trademarked goods like Coca-Cola.  I'm don't think you have the right to insist on these things. 

[FredericBastiat]

The right of property is simply the right of dominion. It is the right, which one man has, as against all other men, to the exclusive control, dominion, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing.

The principle of property is, that a thing belongs to one man, and not to another—mine, and thine, and his, are the terms that convey the idea of property. The word property is derived from proprius, signifying one’s own. The principle of property, then, is the principle of one’s personal ownership, control, and dominion, of and over any thing. The right of property is one’s right of ownership, enjoyment, control, and dominion, of and over any object.

The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor. The thing belongs to him, and not to another man. He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure; and is not accountable to others for the manner in which he may use it. Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will.

His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to invade, infringe, or impair the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own.

The legal idea of property, then, is, that one thing belongs to one man, and another thing to another man; and that neither of these persons have a right to any voice in the control or disposal of what belongs to the other; that each is the sole lord of what is his own; that he is its sovereign; and has a right to use, enjoy, and dispose of it, at his pleasure, without giving any account, or being under any responsibility, to others, for his manner of using, enjoying, or disposing of it.

This right of property, which each man has, to what is his own, is a right, not merely against any one single individual, but it is a right against all other individuals, singly and collectively. The right is equally valid, and equally strong, against the will of all other men combined, as against the will of every or any other man separately. It is a right against the whole world. The thing is his, and is not the world’s. And the world must leave it alone, or it does him a wrong; commits a trespass, or a robbery, against him. If the whole world, or any one of the world, desire anything that is an individual’s, they must obtain his free consent to part with it, by such inducements as they can offer him. If they can offer him no inducements, sufficient to procure his free consent to part with it, they must leave him in the quiet enjoyment of what is his own.

[Hawker]

All of that can be applied to intellectual property.  You seem to be retreating from your own logic.

Do you believe your right to copy the outcome of other people's research is more important than society's right to have that research?  Yes.

Do you believe you should have the right to sell a fizzy drink called Coca-Cola and motor parts called Ford that are not from the brand owners.  Yes.

All of your ideas seem to involve you making a profit at the expense of everyone else.  And you try to rationalise your greed by denying society has the right to organise itself.

Not a very attractive ideology is it?

[NghtRppr]

If there were no trademark, there would be no Coca-Cola brand as they would be no way to stop other people riding on the back on the Coca-Cola advertising.

Oh well then...

[Hawker]

If there were no trademark, there would be no Coca-Cola brand as they would be no way to stop other people riding on the back on the Coca-Cola advertising.

Oh well then...

Exactly  Your whole premise is that 1 individual has the right to prevent the rest of society having a brand like Coca-Cola or MacDonalds.  And thats not the case; if a society has chosen to have these things, individuals in society can be legitimately punished if they try to prevent it.  You are free never to touch Coca-Cola yourself.  But you are not free to prevent other people having it.

The same basic logic applies to research.  People want drugs to cure illnesses.  You may think the fact that you can't copy the drugs and sell them for profit is a huge infringement of your liberty but no-one cares.  The rights of the many to drugs vastly exceeds the value of your right to make a quick unearned profit.

[fergalish]

If the constitution was a contract for anything other than a non-aggression pact (i.e. prevent injury, slavery, and plunder), then no. You must acquire consent, free of coercion, before you negotiate with me for my property and life. Regarding their decendants, the same is true. The rebels who oppose are on the same footing as everybody else. Isn't that the beauty of equity in law? It doesn't matter if you're short or tall, black or white, jew or gentile, it still works. True laws are immutable.

I'm talking about Libyans in Martyr's Square in Tripoli cheering and happy because the rebellion has succeeded.  Should they be bound by the proto-government's consitution & legislation?  Alternatively, do you think every country should individually interview each of its citizens to see which laws they agree to and which they don't?  Then you'd have to draw up a great big table so everybody would know exactly how to behave around everyone else.  But then, you'd have to be careful around me, 'cos I really hate it when people honk the horn for no reason - it damages my eardrums and that's violence against me, so I would consider myself to have the right to confiscate your car and shoot you then.

And then, regarding the children not yet born, what - should the country organise a new survey every generation to interview people that weren't around the first time?  Of course, then people born just after the interviews would have to wait their turn, so maybe you should do it every 5 years maybe?  That could take care of people who change their minds too.

And then, what about those opposing the popular uprising - should they be cordoned off in some corner of the country set aside just for that purpose?

A set of laws is nothing other that the rules by which members of a society, at some point in the past, agreed to be bound.  The set of laws generally follows cultural and historical precedents in order to be as acceptable as possible to as many people as possible and, fortunately, they generally include mechanisms by which laws can be added, changed, and revoked, according as the culture and moral basis of the society evolves.

In the case of IP, as someone here (hawker?) said, it's telling that just about every country on the planet has adopted some form of IP rights.  The discussion we're having has moved from a justification of IP and patent law, to question the very validity of law itself.  So it's also telling that just about every country on the planet also has a solid legal system (yeah, I know about Somalia - let's count how many R&D innovations come out of there /before/ some government manages to bootstrap itself and institute a country-wide legal system).

Slavery has been around for thousands of years, and your point..? Since when does the "when" and "how long" matter here? Isn't wrong wrong, and right right regardless of the when? It would seem obvious to anybody, that laws are independent of cronology.

No.  That's *exactly* where you're mistaken.  Right and wrong are only what are *perceived* as right and wrong.  Homosexuality is perceived as wrong by many people, not so by others.  Or walking naked in the street.  Who knows, maybe there's something you find offensive which others don't.  E.g. suppose someone spits on the sidewalk in front of you?  Suppose someone takes a shit on the sidewalk in front of you?  Suppose someone skips the queue in front of you?  Suppose someone dumps their trash on your lawn (no violence there)?  What about road safety?  Suppose in your new libertarian paradise there are still cars.  Well, according to your argument, my car is my car, and no-one can impose that my car must be tested and found roadworthy before I can drive it.  Then, by accident, 'cos I haven't checked the brakes in 10 years, I drive over someone's family.  Whoops, sorry libertarians, but it's my car, my petrol, and you can't deny me the right to use them as I please.

Maybe in the future, people will think back and say "Ugghh, how disgusting, they used to enslave *animals* to do their work. Boy am I glad we're enlightened now."  It's a reasonable supposition.  Or "Ugghh, they used to eat *meat* *barrrffff*, I'm sure glad that's illegal now, it's so obviously *wrong*."  Right and wrong can only be judged in the cultural and moral context of the *society* in which the action takes place -  there is no absolute morality.  As far as I understand, this is a well established philosophical principle (but don't ask me for a quote, I can't provide.  Maybe some more learned bitcoiner can).

Yes I've heard of this "social contract" you're referring to. Bring me the contract to review with my attorney present and I'll decide, after much deliberation, whether or not the terms of the contract suit me. If they (the terms) do not, I will go my way, back to my private property and continue to live my life as I see fit. Don't molest me, and I won't molest you. Fair enough?

If you're American, the social contract was proposed by the "founding fathers" in the 18th century and popularly accepted - back then they didn't have computers and couldn't possibly have conducted the interviews I suggested above.  What they did was probably as reasonable as could be expected.  I don't need to bring you the contract - all you have to do is get a copy of the constitution and all legislation since enacted, and decide if you like it, in the presence of your attorney if you prefer.  If not, then inform the State Department that you no longer consent to be bound by them.  Try it, really, I'd love to know how you get on.

If they (the terms) do not, I will go my way, back to my private property and continue to live my life as I see fit. Don't molest me, and I won't molest you. Fair enough?

Great.  But then, be sure not to use any state-provided water, any state-provided electricity, any state-provided health-care, any state-provided transport infrastructure, or any state-provided anything.  Actually, don't even breathe the air that blows in from off your property, because that air is only breathable thanks to state regulations that prohibit your neighbour from constructiing [horrible polluting] industry right next to residential zones, even though it's his property.  Believe me, I'd be more than happy if you went back to your private property and never came out but... something tells me it wouldn't last long.

[FredericBastiat]

All of that can be applied to intellectual property.  You seem to be retreating from your own logic.

Do you believe your right to copy the outcome of other people's research is more important than society's right to have that research?  Yes.

Do you believe you should have the right to sell a fizzy drink called Coca-Cola and motor parts called Ford that are not from the brand owners.  Yes.

All of your ideas seem to involve you making a profit at the expense of everyone else.  And you try to rationalise your greed by denying society has the right to organise itself.

Not a very attractive ideology is it?

Intellectual property laws deal in the prohibition of similarities respecting distinct objects. As in your object looks, acts, smells, tastes or quacks like mine, and you don't like that so you sue me. You are merely offended at the appearance of my physical material matter.

I could care less how attractive an ideology is. I could say my neigbor is unattractive but that doesn't give me the right to assault him.

The world "all" is all-inclusive. It means everything. I believe in the diversity of ideas equally as much as mimicking my neighbor because I think he's got a good thing going and I want to compete with him. Competition reduces profits typically. Do you have a thing against competition?

I give no defferential treatment due to the origins of ideas. Property origins, yes, idea origins no.

Society can organize it self, it should not force me to be assimilated.

[Hawker]

All of that can be applied to intellectual property.  You seem to be retreating from your own logic.

Do you believe your right to copy the outcome of other people's research is more important than society's right to have that research?  Yes.

Do you believe you should have the right to sell a fizzy drink called Coca-Cola and motor parts called Ford that are not from the brand owners.  Yes.

All of your ideas seem to involve you making a profit at the expense of everyone else.  And you try to rationalise your greed by denying society has the right to organise itself.

Not a very attractive ideology is it?

Intellectual property laws deal in the prohibition of similarities respecting objects. As in your object looks, acts, smells, tastes or quacks like mine, and you don't like that so you sue me. You are merely offended at the appearance of my physical material matter.

I could care less how attractive an ideology is. I could say my neigbor is unattractive but that doesn't give me the right to assault him.

The world "all" is all-inclusive. It means everything. I believe in the diversity of ideas equally as much as mimicking my neighbor because I think he's got a good thing going and I want to compete with him.

I give no defferential treatment due to the origins of ideas. Property origins, yes, idea origins no.

Society can organize it self, it should not force me to be assimilated.

If you are preventing society from having things it wants like new medicines, it will stop you.  The need for medicine outweighs your greed for a quick unearned profit.  You really expect people to die early so you can claim a few cheap dollars?

The problem you have is that your first principle is wrong.  You say man is by nature autonomous.  We are born in communities and the community has the capability to act.  The only debate is what is the basis of action; your desire for profit from other people's work or the community's need for research.  I think you'll find you are alone in thinking your profit is more important.  And if making sure the community gets its medicine requires you to be "assimilated", you will be. 

[fergalish]

Society can organize it self, it should not force me to be assimilated.

Society cannot organise itself, if its members refuse to cooperate with one another.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm talking about Libyans in Martyr's Square in Tripoli...
And then, regarding the children not yet born...
A set of laws is nothing other that the rules by which members of a society...

See answer above. Doesn't change anything I've already said.

In the case of IP, as someone here (hawker?) said, it's telling that just about every country on the planet has adopted some form of IP rights.  The discussion we're having has moved from a justification of IP and patent law, to question the very validity of law itself...

Now were getting somewhere. Whoa, that took some time! Wasn't that the point of this thread? Just 'cause everybody's doing it doesn't necessarily make it right. 6 billion people on the planet could decide tomorrow to rob, assault, maim and then kill me, but that wouldn't necessarily make it just would it?

...Right and wrong are only what are *perceived* as right and wrong...
Maybe in the future, people will think back and say "Ugghh, how disgusting... there is no absolute morality...  As far as I understand, this is a well established philosophical principle...

This is true. There is no provable objective morality, but what we make. However, if that is the case, we could just be prey and predator and just do whatever we want (no right, no wrong, just do, kill or be killed). Seems there might be a line drawn in the sand somewhere...

If you're American, the social contract was proposed by the "founding fathers" in the 18th century and popularly accepted ... If not, then inform the State Department that you no longer consent to be bound by them.  Try it, really, I'd love to know how you get on.

That's the gangsta' attitude shining thru. I fully expect to be rebuffed. They don't want me to be free. They live a much easier life if they can plunder from me that which they would have to work for otherwise. What you're saying is; I dare you and see how nasty they'll treat you. Yeah, I get it. They're a bunch of scum because I wish to be free of their thuggery.

Great.  But then, be sure not to use any state-provided water, any state-provided electricity, any state-provided health-care, any state-provided transport infrastructure, or any state-provided anything...

I'll just quote F. Bastiat as he put it more eloquently than I:

"Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State—then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion—then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State."

[FredericBastiat]

Society cannot organise itself, if its members refuse to cooperate with one another.

Ask me nicely and I might just consider it. I want non-coerced societal organization thank you pretty please.

Why is it so important that your group of individuals (apparently known as society) wishes to force things down my throat? I get the fact that you can, and because you number greater than me and mine, but why?

What does sheer numbers have to do with it? Your collective force is greater than what I can muster and I probably couldn't defend myself against you, but why should I have to?

Is there nowhere I can go where I can be left unmolested?

Wait a minute... are we trolling... Haaa, hardee, har, har, you were just getting me all riled up. This is a joke isn't it? I've been flim flammed, pranked, jokes on me. Whew!!, I was worried for a second...

LOLOLOLOL

[FirstAscent]

Why is it so important that your group of individuals (apparently known as society) wishes to force things down my throat? I get the fact that you can, and because you number greater than me and mine, but why?

Anything that requires more resources than one can muster requires organization. Any organization, by virtue of its existence, is a decision making body. Any organization greater than a size of two likely will require some type of system that allows it to act on decisions that all members might not be in favor of. Voting is one example.

I hope that answers your question. And I hope it pretty much puts to rest the ongoing discussion that has been occurring in countless threads here as to the slim viability of organization without coercion.

[FredericBastiat]

Anything that requires more resources than one can muster requires organization. Any organization, by virtue of its existence, is a decision making body. Any organization greater than a size of two likely will require some type of system that allows it to act on decisions that all members might not be in favor of. Voting is one example.

I hope that answers your question. And I hope it pretty much puts to rest the ongoing discussion that has been occurring in countless threads here as to the slim viability of organization without coercion.

So what you're saying is I can't convince other people to freely join an organization, sans coercion (i.e. "society-like"), without having to force them to do it?

This puts nothing to rest. I am a society of three. I have friends too -amazingly hard to believe isn't it? If you want to join me you can, if you don't, I don't care, neither will I force you. There I just did it.

The definition of contract (of which organizing is a primary feature) is the mutual consent to be bound by an agreement and it's terms or covenants between two or more persons. It cannot impose anything other than that which is clearly stated and agreed to. Anybody violating that agreement would be incurring a breach of contract.

To wit, if "society" breaks the terms of the agreement I willfully and freely entered into, they are in violation and should render to me proper restitution for their folly.

Organization does not imply coercion, they are just better at it than the individual solo actor. You wouldn't happen to be a member of a gang would you?

[FirstAscent]

It's not at all clear to me what organization you are being coerced to join, nor is it clear to me how you think I implied that organization is about coercing others to join organizations.

To be clear, if you opt to be part of an organization, it is because you want to benefit from the power that the organization can bring to bear on problems that an individual cannot. By virtue of being part of that organization, it is virtually inevitable that it will make decisions that all members of that organization are not in favor of. Once the organization acts on those decisions, those that weren't in favor of those decisions might feel coerced.

[FredericBastiat]

I've noticed a lot of issues (errant definitions and meanings) regarding the net resultant effect "society" has on it's members. It seems like there are two types of societies. The friendly type of "society", and the other type of "society" which I like to call gang (criminal hoodlums) organized society.

If society can coerce you to do something with your person or property without your express permission, your "society" is a gang organization. Bad bad, naughty

If on the other hand, your society allows it's members to freely join or dissociate and not affect their person or property, then your society is one of mutual solidarity. Good, good, keep it up

Please help yourself make that distinction when you wish use the term "society" so we all know what you mean.

Use "gang society" when you mean the nasty kind of society, and use "solidarity society" when you mean the benevolent kind of society.

Thanks, and happy discussions...

[NghtRppr]

Your whole premise is that 1 individual has the right to prevent the rest of society having a brand like Coca-Cola or MacDonalds.

I also claim that 1 individual has the right to prevent the rest of society from murdering, enslaving, raping or stealing from that person. It doesn't matter how many people want something that's an injustice. It's still an injustice.

[Hawker]

Your whole premise is that 1 individual has the right to prevent the rest of society having a brand like Coca-Cola or MacDonalds.

I also claim that 1 individual has the right to prevent the rest of society from murdering, enslaving, raping or stealing from that person. It doesn't matter how many people want something that's an injustice. It's still an injustice.

Depriving people of the right to organise themselves in a way that benefits the entire society is a greater injustice.  If the choice is between you losing the freedom to profit from copying the output of someone else's research and the rest of us losing access to new medicines, you lose.  You are deluding yourself if you think your "right" to be a freeloader is somehow more important than our right to organise ourselves to support research and innovation.  That would be a real injustice.

So far, all your ideas seem to amount to is you having free access to unearned profit and everyone else having their freedom removed to facilitate you.  Unless you have some proposal as to how the rest of society can have its medical research and its branded products, I think we are done with your ideas. 

[Hawker]

I've noticed a lot of issues (errant definitions and meanings) regarding the net resultant effect "society" has on it's members. It seems like there are two types of societies. The friendly type of "society", and the other type of "society" which I like to call gang (criminal hoodlums) organized society.

If society can coerce you to do something with your person or property without your express permission, your "society" is a gang organization. Bad bad, naughty

If on the other hand, your society allows it's members to freely join or dissociate and not affect their person or property, then your society is one of mutual solidarity. Good, good, keep it up

Please help yourself make that distinction when you wish use the term "society" so we all know what you mean.

Use "gang society" when you mean the nasty kind of society, and use "solidarity society" when you mean the benevolent kind of society.

Thanks, and happy discussions...

In this case, we  are talking about a democratic society where people want to have research that leads to benefits such as improved medicines.  The mechanism chosen for this is intellectual property.  When you are sick and get the benefit of these medicines you will call it a "solidarity society".  But you also want to be able to take the profit of someone else's intellectual property and if you are told you can't you will call it a "gang society".  Same society - only difference is that your needs.  

You are free to make a factory that sells medicines.  You are free to do employ teams of staff for years on research and make better medicines.  If you sell them at a loss or profit, no-one cares.  But what you want is that you be free to take the results of someone's else's research and resell that for your profit.  That's in your childish words "Bad bad, naughty " and society rightly stops you.

The core issue here is freedom.  We have to choose between your desire for to profit from someone else's research with our collective desire for the benefits of research.  It can't be both; either we have medicines or your "freedom" to take the output of other people's work.

In this case, your "freedom" is the loser.  You have no right to prevent people having new medicines.  Unless you have some proposal that allows us as a society to have the benefits of medical research, your ideas are worthless and we are done with them.