Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

By the way, where would you rather meet me after dark openly holding a hundred dollar bill, in Disney World or Times Square?

Neither.

[FredericBastiat]

Is it getting hotter in here, or is it just me??

Define without reification, the following:

Private Property,
Public Property,
Private Contract,
Public Contract,
Law,
Force,
Justice,
Liberty,
Freedom,
Aggression,
Right,
Wrong.

[FirstAscent]

That's up to each road owner to decide. Maybe you have to pay a monthly fee. Maybe you have to have an RFID chip on your bumper. Maybe you have to blow into a breathalizer before getting on the road. Maybe you have to agree to be publicly executed if you are caught driving drunk. It will be up to the road owners but since they are trying to attract customers, you can bet it won't be too restrictive or too relaxed. Whoever can provide the safest, cheapest and overall best roads will attract more customers and drive the others out of business.

As I stated a few posts back, imagine the joy of staying current with each road owner's differing set of policies, regulations, requirements, monitoring equipment, contracts, and so on. Imagine how much fun it would be to research the different policies and fees, and staying abreast of changes due to change in ownership, and so on. You too can live the libertarian dream.

[The Script]

By the way, where would you rather meet me after dark openly holding a hundred dollar bill, in Disney World or Times Square?

Neither.

Way to avoid the question.  Disney World, definitely.  A better comparison would be Disney World or Central Park, though.  Both are "parks" or "amusement centers", one private and one public.  I would still choose Disney World.

[FredericBastiat]

Section 4 of your law relates to "UPA", Unprovoked Physical Agressions of "BoCs", Breaches of Contract leading to a loss of rights.  Where is the agression or contract in any of these scenarios?  I presume the rights lost refer to section 2 - right to defend and control one's life and property.

Yes section 2 refers to ones right to life and property.

Does someone have to own the sea as well?  And all the ocean?  Do you have to enter into a contract with people on the other side of the ocean in the event your pollution should cause damage there?  Suppose you want to build a nuclear power-plant.  First of all, you'll have to be sure not to impinge on others' property rights by emitting radioactive waste.  But then wait, what if there's a meltdown and you end up accidentally destroying the country for 100 miles around?

If you don't own it, and I don't own it, and nobody owns it, then who cares. I know your answer. You do care; so go homestead it, occupy it and claim it for your own, and then complain at me when I provably pollute it (equivalent to trespass).

Section 7.1 says force can be resolved to resolve a rights violation.  I presume here you mean to say that a drunk driver can legitimately be beaten up, or have property confiscated, or maybe assassinated, if he kills someone.  An eye for an eye, eh?  We're really moving civilisation forward here, aren't we? ...I freely admit that current legislation does not bring people back from the dead, but I can't see how libertarianism will improve road safety, or food safety, nuclear safety, etc.

You were the one wanting to create laws that force a particular type of rule of law. How else do we restore loss or provide restitution to the victims - just say I'm sorry...? How does anything change that might improve safety etc. People do this; government is a fancy name for people with big scary sticks. You make legislation sound like it magically solves problems by mere proclamation.

What if it's a controvertible diminishment in one's Rights?  Suppose I feel that your action diminshes my rights, and yet you think otherwise?  Either in the absence of a contract, or where the perceived diminishment has not been foreseen by the contract and hence, the appropriate compensation has not been specified.  Resolve this conflict please.

You'd have to objectify your feelings by identifying and relating them to things that exist in reality. Don't reify.

[FredericBastiat]

As I stated a few posts back, imagine the joy of staying current with each road owner's differing set of policies, regulations, requirements, monitoring equipment, contracts, and so on. Imagine how much fun it would be to research the different policies and fees, and staying abreast of changes due to change in ownership, and so on. You too can live the libertarian dream.

How is this any different than my house "rules" vs. your house "rules" vs. everybody else's house "rules"? Now come to think of it (light-bulb-turning-on-moment), drum roll... There ought to be a law... Sheesh.

[fergalish]

All property will be either owned or unowned. If it's owned then it's owned by one or more people. If it's owned by more than one person it is settled by vote.

So then... some group of people, somehow sharing ownership of some property, get together and collectively decide the rules that all owners of any part of that property should follow.  What if you don't agree?  Are you somehow restricted from using your property as you wish so?  I'll leave you to complete the thought.

Suppose, let's continue with the lake analogy, that you don't dump your toxic chemicals in the lake, because you don't agree with the vote.  You just dump at the edge of your land, close to the edge of the lake.  Rain, of course, washes it into the soil, and it leeches into the lake.  Now what?

And what if it's unowned?  You didn't say what happens then.  If property can be unowned, who decides the rules for appropriate behaviour thereon?  Vote again?  By who, the whole world?  What about the drunk driver example, but on an unowned road.

There could be several competing versions of the FDA. Each one with different costs and different standards. There could be super-expensive and super-safe food for paranoid people. There could be average-cost food with safety comparable to current standards. There could be low-safety standards for people that don't care or don't value safety that highly. It would ultimately be up to market forces and each person to decide what's right for them rather than "one size fits all".

You keep just pushing the boat out.  Health issues like this can take *years* to come to light, long after the damage has been done, and long after any hope of recourse has vanished.  Same problem now, I agree, but libertarianism is not an improvement.

Suppose the pedestrians are walking through the town square.  Is that also private property in your world?  Do you have to read the Terms & Conditions of the town square, and sign your acceptance, before entering it?

Yes, you would have to agree to the terms and conditions and buy a ticket signifying your acceptance much like any other private park, Disney World, etc. By the way, where would you rather meet me after dark openly holding a hundred dollar bill, in Disney World or Times Square?

So, while I walk into town to do my shopping, I'll have to stop every few hundred yards along the road to pay a toll, carefully read the terms & conditions, then enter each shop one after the other, again reading the terms and conditions of each shop.... a never ending stream of terms and conditions...??  Dude, have you *ever* read the ENTIRE terms & conditions of a website you signed up to?  The schools in this libertarian world are gonna be so damn rich, 'cos everyone's gonna have to be a lawyer to wade their way through all the paperwork involved with just doing the damn shopping.  Never mind if you actually wanna *do* something.  Shiiiiit, that's just so far beyond ridiculous that I find it hard to believe you're not just debating for the fun of it.  See FirstAscent's latest posts.

I would hope business owners would consider that when locating their business in the first place. Also, since road owners are trying to attract customers and having business adjacent to their roads will do that, they are going to be very reasonable if they want to make money.

Since right now roads are public property, we could assume the businesses are there first, before the road becomes private.

That's up to each road owner to decide. Maybe you have to pay a monthly fee. Maybe you have to have an RFID chip on your bumper. Maybe you have to blow into a breathalizer before getting on the road. Maybe you have to agree to be publicly executed if you are caught driving drunk. It will be up to the road owners but since they are trying to attract customers, you can bet it won't be too restrictive or too relaxed. Whoever can provide the safest, cheapest and overall best roads will attract more customers and drive the others out of business.

You mean like a thousand, or a million RFID chips on your bumper - one for each road-owner.  And now you also have to walk to some road-owner offices, blow into a breathalyser, then walk back home and you can start driving.  And what, are there barriers and breathalysers between each section of road?

I just can't see how road safety could possibly be improved in a libertarian world.

You just need to understand market forces. Currently, about 40,000 Americans die on the road each year. Does the road owner go lose money or go out of business because of that? No. So what's the incentive to improve that? Very little. However, if it were privately run, losing money would surely provoke a response.

But all you want is that drivers be punished for their irresponsible behaviour.  Road owners still won't be punished.  Oh sorry, people will prefer to go *the long way* to work every morning because the rules are more strict and people don't die so much.  Yeah, sure, 'cos people have *loads* of time to spare to take the long way when they drive places.  And loads of spare time to read terms and conditions too. [/sarcasm]

If you don't own it, and I don't own it, and nobody owns, then who cares. I know your answer. You do care; so go homestead it, occupy it and claim it for your own, and then complain at me when I provably pollute it (equivalent to trespass).

The people who fish on the sea might care.  And the people who eat the fish from the sea might care (do you eat fish?).  But then, the same goes for anything that is unowned - see above.

You were the one wanting to create laws that force a particular type of rule of law. How else do we restore loss or provide restitution to the victims, just say I'm sorry...? How does anything change that might improve safety etc. People do this, government is a fancy name for people with big scary sticks. You make legislation sound like it magically solves problems by mere proclamation.

It's safer because there is one set of rules on road-safety that everyone should follow (though sadly not all do).  In case you hadn't read my post, I didn't say current legislation solves the problem - here's the bit, read it again:
"I freely admit that current legislation does not bring people back from the dead, but I can't see how libertarianism will improve road safety, or food safety, nuclear safety, etc."
Problem is, you make it sound as if arbitrary sets of rules, different from place-to-place and from day-to-day, will solve the problem.  And in any case, there *is* an established procedure for determining blame, responsibility and even compensation.  It's far from perfect, agreed, but better than having to sign a contract every time you need to take a piss.  Do you know what that procedure is?

What if it's a controvertible diminishment in one's Rights?

You'd have to objectify your feelings by identifying and relating them to things that exist in reality. Don't reify.

Oh, man, is this ever going to end?  How about: "I can't find any fish anymore, 'cos the fish are all dead!"  How's that?  Or like, "my fingers are mashed up and I can't draw pictures anymore".  Or, "I can't have kids anymore 'cos the hormones you used caused my testicles to shrink to the size of a speck of dust".  USE YOUR IMAGINATION - try to conceive of a situation where one party feels his rights have been infringed while the other party disagrees, AND where there is no contractual clause covering those precise circumstances.

--

bitcoin2cash, for a while I thought that libertarianism could somehow be a noble enterprise, with grand possibilities for improving the human condition.  As you paint it, it's a goddamn hell, full of uncertainties where anyone, anywhere, anytime, can just change the rules as they see fit because it's their property.  You (or maybe it was Frederic) wanted to be sure society can't suddenly, arbitrarily, declare blue-eyed people to be slaves.  Well, in your libertarian shit-hole, it seems anyone can do just exactly that, and you'd probably agree to it too, because the 100th time you crossed the town square to get to the supermarket, you decided not the re-read the small print at the end of the terms & conditions.

Frederic, you're full of crap too.  "right" and "wrong" are abstract concepts, as are many if not all the other terms you wrote.  Wikipedia says: "Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing" (thanks, that's a new word for me).  Might as well ask me to prove 1+1=3.

You two are *by far* the worst proponents of libertarianism I've ever come across, either on this forum or elsewhere.  I'm done here.

[FredericBastiat]

Fergalish,

The individual bad actors of society are the ones ruining it for everybody else. Society is only as good or as bad as it's individual actors. Don't blame the ideology, (Libertarianism, or any other -ism) for the horrible outcomes that spring forth. Punish the criminal, but first and foremost, define the crime. Being consistent with the fewest dichotomies and oxymorons helps.

Libertarianism attempts to reconcile and reduce laws into their component parts attempting to not produce violent outcomes or illogical conclusions. It wouldn't make sense to have two laws in conflict with themselves. If it does conflict, go back to the drawing board. Don't ignore it; explore it, resolve it, or rescind it.

EDIT: Try it sometime, it's quite a refreshing eye-opener.

[FredericBastiat]

In re, IP vs. Private Property.

In this context, an object is a thing comprised of physical material matter. It is tangible.

Private Property: An object within the exclusive control (to use, compose, recombine, dispose, exchange, divide, or destroy) of the owner (a human), excepting only, that said control not effectuate tangible physical and material perturbations (physical force) upon another man or his possessions, is Private Property.

Intellectual Property: The object of one owner that resembles the material characteristics or composition of an object owned by another who was not the originator of said object's composition, pattern or function is prohibited.

Resolve the dichotomy. Those two types of "property" conflict. Please don't summarily dismiss the concern as it is pertinent to the discussion at hand (IP law).

[hashman]

In re, IP vs. Private Property.

In this context, an object is a thing comprised of physical material matter. It is tangible.

Private Property: An object within the exclusive control (to use, compose, recombine, dispose, exchange, divide, or destroy) of the owner (a human), excepting only, that said control not effectuate tangible physical and material perturbations (physical force) upon another man or his possessions, is Private Property.

Intellectual Property: The object of one owner that resembles the material characteristics or composition of an object owned by another who was not the originator of said object's composition, pattern or function is prohibited.

Resolve the dichotomy. Those two types of "property" conflict. Please don't summarily dismiss the concern as it is pertinent to the discussion at hand (IP law).

You make two interesting points here.  One is a quick suggestion that an "owner" of private property is a human.  Let me go out on a limb here and say that this suggestion has merit, when the ownership conflict in question affects humans.  However I don't see this one becoming mainstream in the immediate future, after an open system of money becomes mainstream if at all.  Currently, fictitious persons such as LLCs, AGs, etc. usually have full rights of ownership and often more rights than humans (lower taxes on ownership, lower liabilities).  As a bitcoin enthusiast we might define ownership of an object as the ability to create a recognized valid transaction of said object. 

The second is that intellectual property pertains to an object, as you put it:  "an object that resembles [] characteristics [] of an object owned by another []".
This might not pertain to e.g. a band performing a song for which ownership is claimed by a fictitious person, or a teenager who had chunks of bits which could be encoded to recreate said performance whiz through the random access memory of her computer.  However, it may be a good way to think about it, for the RAM itself is an object, as is the band on the stage.  In some sense then, it is the shirt with the Carmody number on it which is illegal under US law..  not the abstract number itself    a little better?

It is important to distinguish that if I sell you a product, and and lie to you about its manufacturer, I have committed fraud.  Further, if I claim your work is my own I have committed plagiarism.  Fraud and plagiarism are crimes in their own right with their own retributions from different institutions.  Intellectual property laws outlaw activities that are not fraud and are not plagiarism, and it is those aspects of intellectual property laws which stifle innovation and lead to gross inefficiencies:   


"There was the American public service National Public Radio / This American Life with the longer in-depth When Patents Attack. New York Times is calling the whole deal “disturbing”. The Economist has a piece which explains why patents hinder rather than help innovation. The Guardian notes that patents make companies find it more valuable to sue each other than “actually making things”, and calls the whole construct “foolish”. Washington Post writes that “instead of spurring innovations and entrepreneurship, patents are being used … by cynical lawyers to stifle and discourage them.”"

(last paragraph taken from http://falkvinge.net/2011/08/24/sudden-mass-support-from-oldmedia-patents-do-prevent-innovation/
)   




     

[NghtRppr]

So then... some group of people, somehow sharing ownership of some property, get together and collectively decide the rules that all owners of any part of that property should follow.  What if you don't agree?  Are you somehow restricted from using your property as you wish so?  I'll leave you to complete the thought.

That depends on the nature of the ownership. Since property can only be homesteaded by a single individual. At some point, all shared property will have once been owned by a single person. When ownership is first becoming shared it will be decided how it will be managed, by unanimous vote or majority vote.

Suppose, let's continue with the lake analogy, that you don't dump your toxic chemicals in the lake, because you don't agree with the vote.  You just dump at the edge of your land, close to the edge of the lake.  Rain, of course, washes it into the soil, and it leeches into the lake.  Now what?

You're responsible for the damage caused. It's still the case that railroad cars emit sparks that land on other people's property and causes fires. The government doesn't allow them to be sued as long as they follow regulations and have spark suppressors. That wasn't always the case and wouldn't be the case otherwise.

And what if it's unowned?  You didn't say what happens then.  If property can be unowned, who decides the rules for appropriate behaviour thereon?  Vote again?  By who, the whole world?  What about the drunk driver example, but on an unowned road.

There are no rules on unowned land other than the default rule of non-aggression. I can't shoot you or slam into your car at high speed. I can drive drunk if I want to though.

You keep just pushing the boat out.  Health issues like this can take *years* to come to light, long after the damage has been done, and long after any hope of recourse has vanished.  Same problem now, I agree, but libertarianism is not an improvement.

It's not an improvement in that one regard. It is, however, based on moral behavior of non-aggression and it puts a mechanism in place, market forces, that tends to give people what they want at certain price.

So, while I walk into town to do my shopping, I'll have to stop every few hundred yards along the road to pay a toll, carefully read the terms & conditions, then enter each shop one after the other, again reading the terms and conditions of each shop.... a never ending stream of terms and conditions...??  Dude, have you *ever* read the ENTIRE terms & conditions of a website you signed up to?  The schools in this libertarian world are gonna be so damn rich, 'cos everyone's gonna have to be a lawyer to wade their way through all the paperwork involved with just doing the damn shopping.  Never mind if you actually wanna *do* something.  Shiiiiit, that's just so far beyond ridiculous that I find it hard to believe you're not just debating for the fun of it.

It's unlikely that would be the case. Remember, different shopping centers are competing. Let's say you open a shopping center like that and since it's the only one in town everyone just suffers through it. Being a smart guy, I get investors to help me build a new shopping center with a standardized set of terms and conditions where you have roads that are paid for by a monthly membership fee. I'll make a fortune by attracting people to my new and convenient shopping center. If you had some bizarre terms and conditions like allowing the the staff to hunt customers for sport, you can be sure that information would spread far and fast. Then nobody would go there because you'd be out of business. That's the brilliant thing about competition. It puts a limit on the kinds of things that business can get away with. If the price and service don't match. People will go elsewhere, attracted by other businesses trying to make a profit by being better.

Since right now roads are public property, we could assume the businesses are there first, before the road becomes private.

Yes, the transition from public to private would be different than if it was private from the start. Ideally, whatever solution we come up would be something close to how it would be if it was always private. Perhaps we can give all the businesses a share in the roads and they can vote how they are maintained or vote to sell them to the highest bidder. It's definitely something to consider but not a huge obstacle.

You mean like a thousand, or a million RFID chips on your bumper - one for each road-owner.  And now you also have to walk to some road-owner offices, blow into a breathalyser, then walk back home and you can start driving.  And what, are there barriers and breathalysers between each section of road?

I doubt that would be the case. Remember, road owners are trying to make it convenient, not inconvenient. There could be maybe three or four different chips and all the roads use them as a clearing house. I don't know how breathalysers would work. That's ultimately something that the market would settle on. Look at it like this. Let's say that shoes were made by the government and then I suggest they are privatized. Then you have many questions.

"Who will make the shoes? How much will they cost? What styles will be available? Where will I buy them? What sizes will they be in?"

The response is, I don't know, honestly. I can give you some ideas but ultimately it will be the market that decides all of that. Which it has, obviously, since we don't buy our shoes from the government.

But all you want is that drivers be punished for their irresponsible behaviour.  Road owners still won't be punished.  Oh sorry, people will prefer to go *the long way* to work every morning because the rules are more strict and people don't die so much.  Yeah, sure, 'cos people have *loads* of time to spare to take the long way when they drive places.  And loads of spare time to read terms and conditions too.

You're not thinking three dimensionally. Don't like the current road owner? Think you can do better? Tunnel under it. Build on top of it. If that doesn't work and you don't want to go a different way to work then you must not care that much. If the conditions aren't bad enough to add 10 or 20 minutes to your commute, how bad are they?

bitcoin2cash, for a while I thought that libertarianism could somehow be a noble enterprise, with grand possibilities for improving the human condition.  As you paint it, it's a goddamn hell, full of uncertainties where anyone, anywhere, anytime, can just change the rules as they see fit because it's their property.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

Freedom can be a scary idea. I won't lie to you. But if I own property, isn't that how it should be? Isn't that what ownership is all about? If I own a house and you tell me I can't wear shoes inside or smoke in it, how exactly is it my house?

Well, in your libertarian shit-hole, it seems anyone can do just exactly that, and you'd probably agree to it too, because the 100th time you crossed the town square to get to the supermarket, you decided not the re-read the small print at the end of the terms & conditions.

Come on, we wouldn't throw informed consent out of the window. If you don't like the terms and conditions then you can leave. If you can make a reasonable argument that you were unaware of them you can still leave. We would recognize the difference between buying a ticket to a mall and becoming a slave vs. signing a contract three times, with witnesses and a recording of your declaration that you wish to become a slave.

You two are *by far* the worst proponents of libertarianism I've ever come across, either on this forum or elsewhere.  I'm done here.

I'm not trying to con you into becoming a libertarian. I'm not a salesman. I'm trying to accurately describe how libertarianism would work. If you don't like my answers then you probably don't like libertarianism. However, there is a chance you might find better answers elsewhere though I doubt it. If you don't like what I've said, you're probably not ready for this ideology. Good luck to you and thanks for the conversation.

[FirstAscent]

The response is, I don't know, honestly. I can give you some ideas but ultimately it will be the market that decides all of that. Which it has, obviously, since we don't buy our shoes from the government.

Shoes vs. roads. You're right - we don't buy our shoes from the government. Ever stop and wonder why shoes are free market goods and roads typically are not?

You're not thinking three dimensionally. Don't like the current road owner? Think you can do better? Tunnel under it. Build on top of it.

Sounds like a misguided attempt to confuse consumer dissatisfaction with massive and redundant construction projects.

Freedom can be a scary idea. I won't lie to you. But if I own property, isn't that how it should be? Isn't that what ownership is all about? If I own a house and you tell me I can't wear shoes inside or smoke in it, how exactly is it my house?

Where exactly was someone telling you that you couldn't wear shoes in your house, and furthermore, why are you implying that we're scared of such choices?

Come on, we wouldn't throw informed consent out of the window. If you don't like the terms and conditions then you can leave. If you can make a reasonable argument that you were unaware of them you can still leave. We would recognize the difference between buying a ticket to a mall and becoming a slave vs. signing a contract three times, with witnesses and a recording of your declaration that you wish to become a slave.

You've used the word 'we' several times here. Who is 'we'? Do you mean, 'we, the people', as in a declaration of independence? Do you mean 'we', as to imply that we all will run our businesses according to some set of laws - you know - like a set of laws enforced by a government?

I'm trying to accurately describe how libertarianism would work.

You mean you're describing how you fantasize it might work, without really factoring in anything that has been presented to you here.

[gibson042]

A new drug costs several hundred million dollars to develop.  If you remove IP protections, that money will not be invested.  So society loses medical research and gains what?  Nothing.

You keep expressing this opinion as if it were incontrovertible fact. It might interest you or others reading that at least one person with personal experience in pharmaceutical research disputes it.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/mary-ruwart-deadly-secrets-behind-soaring-pharmaceutical-prices/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yvt8CsujzY
http://www.youtube.com/v/0Yvt8CsujzY

[NghtRppr]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/mary-ruwart-deadly-secrets-behind-soaring-pharmaceutical-prices/

Thanks for the link. The relevant part in the video is at 57:06 where the doctor speaking states that the pharmaceutical companies didn't need the patent system before FDA regulations. What mattered was being first-to-market because even when there was a second-to-market, the first-to-market still kept 80% to 90% of the customers. It was only because of the FDA regulations, which made the costs so high to develop new drugs, that the patent system became so important. In other words, get rid of the FDA at the same time you get rid of patents and we will have safe drugs, cheaper and faster. I think this is the nail in the coffin for intellectual property. Thanks again.

[FirstAscent]

Thanks for the link. The relevant part in the video is at 57:06 where the doctor speaking states that the pharmaceutical companies didn't need the patent system before FDA regulations. What mattered was being first-to-market because even when there was a second-to-market, the first-to-market still kept 80% to 90% of the customers. It was only because of the FDA regulations, which made the costs so high to develop new drugs, that the patent system became so important. In other words, get rid of the FDA at the same time you get rid of patents and we will have safe drugs, cheaper and faster. I think this is the nail in the coffin for intellectual property. Thanks again.

I see. So what you're saying is if we didn't have the FDA or patents, market share is determined by who is first to market, right? Thus, the motivation would be all about being first to market, and we know for certain that such a motivator would never ever inspire a company to risk getting a drug or treatment out there before their competition could if it might result in ill effects down the road. Cool.

[Hawker]

In re, IP vs. Private Property.

In this context, an object is a thing comprised of physical material matter. It is tangible.

Private Property: An object within the exclusive control (to use, compose, recombine, dispose, exchange, divide, or destroy) of the owner (a human), excepting only, that said control not effectuate tangible physical and material perturbations (physical force) upon another man or his possessions, is Private Property.

Intellectual Property: The object of one owner that resembles the material characteristics or composition of an object owned by another who was not the originator of said object's composition, pattern or function is prohibited.

Resolve the dichotomy. Those two types of "property" conflict. Please don't summarily dismiss the concern as it is pertinent to the discussion at hand (IP law).

You make two interesting points here.  One is a quick suggestion that an "owner" of private property is a human.  Let me go out on a limb here and say that this suggestion has merit, when the ownership conflict in question affects humans.  However I don't see this one becoming mainstream in the immediate future, after an open system of money becomes mainstream if at all.  Currently, fictitious persons such as LLCs, AGs, etc. usually have full rights of ownership and often more rights than humans (lower taxes on ownership, lower liabilities).  As a bitcoin enthusiast we might define ownership of an object as the ability to create a recognized valid transaction of said object. 

The second is that intellectual property pertains to an object, as you put it:  "an object that resembles [] characteristics [] of an object owned by another []".
This might not pertain to e.g. a band performing a song for which ownership is claimed by a fictitious person, or a teenager who had chunks of bits which could be encoded to recreate said performance whiz through the random access memory of her computer.  However, it may be a good way to think about it, for the RAM itself is an object, as is the band on the stage.  In some sense then, it is the shirt with the Carmody number on it which is illegal under US law..  not the abstract number itself    a little better?

It is important to distinguish that if I sell you a product, and and lie to you about its manufacturer, I have committed fraud.  Further, if I claim your work is my own I have committed plagiarism.  Fraud and plagiarism are crimes in their own right with their own retributions from different institutions.  Intellectual property laws outlaw activities that are not fraud and are not plagiarism, and it is those aspects of intellectual property laws which stifle innovation and lead to gross inefficiencies:   


"There was the American public service National Public Radio / This American Life with the longer in-depth When Patents Attack. New York Times is calling the whole deal “disturbing”. The Economist has a piece which explains why patents hinder rather than help innovation. The Guardian notes that patents make companies find it more valuable to sue each other than “actually making things”, and calls the whole construct “foolish”. Washington Post writes that “instead of spurring innovations and entrepreneurship, patents are being used … by cynical lawyers to stifle and discourage them.”"

(last paragraph taken from http://falkvinge.net/2011/08/24/sudden-mass-support-from-oldmedia-patents-do-prevent-innovation/
)   




     

You are correct but that is an implementation problem.  Frederic's problem is more basic.  He wants to have the right to plagiarism.  He feels its an infringement of his liberty that he can't create a fizzy cola drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola.

Fred, I notice you seem to have given up trying to justify your position.  Here is the question you ran away from in case you have forgotten.

Good effort.  Really - I admire your persistence Smiley But you need to try harder as life is hard and there is a small minority of people who are blatantly dishonest.

If one of these crooks gets the medicine into his hands and in flagrant breach of contract, publishes the formula, are you, as an innocent third party, then free to copy the formula and sell the new drug yourself?  Under the same brand name as the original investor?

If yes, the original investor is ruined and the world being the cruel place it is, you know this will happen every time.  And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

Unless you have some alternative mechanism ?  I await your reply with interest.

Still waiting for your reply. 

[NghtRppr]

And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

As pointed out here, that's false.

[Hawker]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/mary-ruwart-deadly-secrets-behind-soaring-pharmaceutical-prices/

Thanks for the link. The relevant part in the video is at 57:06 where the doctor speaking states that the pharmaceutical companies didn't need the patent system before FDA regulations. What mattered was being first-to-market because even when there was a second-to-market, the first-to-market still kept 80% to 90% of the customers. It was only because of the FDA regulations, which made the costs so high to develop new drugs, that the patent system became so important. In other words, get rid of the FDA at the same time you get rid of patents and we will have safe drugs, cheaper and faster. I think this is the nail in the coffin for intellectual property. Thanks again.

The FDA regulations are there for a reason.  Bad drugs kill people.  If your idea is to allow unregulated drug sales is implemented, some people will die for no good reason.

[hashman]

And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

As pointed out here, that's false.

Its also ironic that such a false statement would appear in this forum..  as bitcoin itself is a nice example proving the statement false.  Imagine, an entire community working on high-tech important research.  And all without a king's guarantee of unfair profits at the end! 

[Hawker]

And thus, the research stops unless there is a patent system.

As pointed out here, that's false.

Its also ironic that such a false statement would appear in this forum..  as bitcoin itself is a nice example proving the statement false.  Imagine, an entire community working on high-tech important research.  And all without a king's guarantee of unfair profits at the end! 

Bitcoin is profitable right now and only getting better.  The difficulty is falling so now is the time to mine  

Asking for an investment of several hundred million dollars with zero return is an entirely different proposition.  BTW, most of us live in democracies where the government represents our wishes.  I don't know where you live but you have a King that makes your laws   Wow.