Intellectual Property - Real or Imaginary?

[Archaic_Entity]

I don't believe that a thought, or word, or idea is property. What is property is what you do with it.

ATOMonkey was pretty spot on with his alchemy reference. If I have the idea, but I never do anything with it... why is that mine? Now, if I create the device that turns lead into gold. That idea has taken creation and is now in a form. I own that form, and no one else does. Copyrighting or patenting a working form is far more sensible. But I can't copyright the idea of lead-to-gold. All I'm doing is stifling innovation. Sure, I may corner the market, but as soon as someone else sees what I'm doing... they can attempt to replicate the end result, but they shouldn't be able to copy the form that I used. Maybe their way will be better, maybe worse. But that's how progress happens.

 

[steveh_131]

If everyone under the sun is allowed to blatantly reverse engineer, manufacture, and sell for profit any new idea, incentive to advance technology would be killed off. Why should a company use their engineers to think of inovative ideas if they know every other company will immediately be manufacturing and selling the same thing?

This is an excellent question. It's a shame that we can't pose it to all the people who have been inventing and creating things for the last couple thousand years, with no copyright or patent protection. The people who were far brighter than us whose ideas we utilize today to do everything that we do.

To the OP, yes I believe it is ethically wrong to steal someone else's idea. I'm an engineer, being able to do something in a more efficient way then the competition is sort of the bread and butter of an engineering firm. "Efficient" is a very large word in this sense. People who come up with and refine a new idea have put a lot of their time and energy into it. Stealing their idea is to me the same as stealing their time and energy. Ethically wrong in my opinion.

Thank you for joining in the debate! A few questions:

1. Does this idea then qualify, ethically, as their 'property'? Are they entitled to the same natural rights of protecting it as if they were protecting their actual physical property?

2. At what point is the idea no longer theirs to own? When they die? Or does their family then inherit the idea?

3. What restrictions should the rest of us observe, ethically, regarding someone else's idea? I assume we shouldn't utilize the idea. Can we talk about it?

Again, these questions are purely philosophical. I am familiar with the legal answers. I am interested in the ethical answers.

 

[Colts]

In industry the traditional debate is Trade Secret vs a Patent Protection.

Keeping a secret protects IP, e.g. the Coke formula, until someone else happens upon (invents) the same idea (if it is published then it is free for all to use).

Filing a patent for IP protection, is an agreement to exchange the knowledge or know-how (for the greater good of all) for a period of exclusivity.

Technology expands at a faster rate, if intellectual property is published. Further improvements that are truely novel generally take some time and are not usually ready for commercialization until the exclusivity period nears completion (anyway).

I think this is a fair system and allows for options and the pursuit a various business strategies dependent upon the specific situation.

 

[HoughMade]

For a bunch of Constitutional scholars, many seem to have forgotten that before there WAS a Second Amendment- the Constitution specifically called for the protection of intellectual property in the form of copyrights and patents (Article 1, sec. 8). Now, whether Congress exercises that wisely or not is a different issue.

 

[downzero]

Interesting article. Makes you wonder whether or not this is even sound economic policy, ethics aside.

That said, I am not at all surprised at the lack of activity in this thread.

People love to throw around the terms 'stealing' or 'theft' when discussing piracy. They love to talk about patents and copyrights like they are natural rights. And yet not a single person will come here and make their case on the ethics of the matter.

It's a whole lot easier to just regurgitate what we've been conditioned to believe and continue to be intellectually lazy.

The problem with the entire discussion is that the biggest problem with IP is that it attacks the most difficult portion of property rights to justify--their origin.

We all love property rights because they encourage people to produce useful output which means jobs for us and cash in our pocket. Without strong property rights, economies like ours and similar simply cannot function.

That said, when did property rights begin? Who picked up the dirt below him and said, "Ahoy, I have finally achieved seisen! Bow down to my claim of right!"?

Nobody really knows. Some legal scholars say that even if the genesis of property rights is impossible to identify, that we should continue to maintain our property rights systems because of the encouragement they provide to produce economic output.

 

[cqcn88]

Thank you for joining in the debate! A few questions:

1. Does this idea then qualify, ethically, as their 'property'? Are they entitled to the same natural rights of protecting it as if they were protecting their actual physical property?

2. At what point is the idea no longer theirs to own? When they die? Or does their family then inherit the idea?

3. What restrictions should the rest of us observe, ethically, regarding someone else's idea? I assume we shouldn't utilize the idea. Can we talk about it?

Again, these questions are purely philosophical. I am familiar with the legal answers. I am interested in the ethical answers.

1. In short, yes. If I'm a creative inventor working out of my garage and I come up with a brilliant idea, I'm going to try to monetize it and feed my family. Maybe I'm no good at anything else, I'm a miserable farmer for example. If the neighbor sees my idea and starts making and selling the same thing out of his garage he is effectively taking food off my table. So yes, I would protect that idea the same as if I were a farmer watching someone run off with my livestock. The end result is the same.

2. Personally, I don't see why the rights to my idea should ever be taken away from me. I don't believe it stifles progress. Here's an example, patents take like what 10 years to expire? Apple doesn't sit around for 10 years waiting for Microsoft's patents to expire. On the contrary they are extremely motivated to come up with something even better than whatever Microsoft is doing. New products come out every 6 months. And yes, I think IP should be able to be passed down via will the same as any other form of property.

3. If you are doing something with someone else's idea that takes money or food or time or energy away from the orignator then you are acting unethically. It doesn't matter how insignificant you think it is.

Side note, few things bother me more than when some lazy idiot tries to explain why no one should "own" intellectual property.

 

[steveh_131]

1. In short, yes. If I'm a creative inventor working out of my garage and I come up with a brilliant idea, I'm going to try to monetize it and feed my family. Maybe I'm no good at anything else, I'm a miserable farmer for example. If the neighbor sees my idea and starts making and selling the same thing out of his garage he is effectively taking food off my table. So yes, I would protect that idea the same as if I were a farmer watching someone run off with my livestock. The end result is the same.

So if it is the equivalent to physical property, then let's look at some hypotheticals.

Scenario 1: You stop at a red light. A man walks up to your door, pulls it open and tries to pull you out. He is about to steal your car! You pull your gun and put it to his head to protect your car by force. Ethical?

Scenario 2: You invent a joke. It's a real knee-slapper. You're thinking about taking it on the road to make some real cash. Something like "L. Neil Smith walks into a bar. Something something coon-fingering a wookie something something firefly anarchist long grass something." You tell this joke to your friend, Fred. Later that night, you hear Fred begin telling your joke to someone else. He is about to steal your joke! You put a gun to his head to protect your joke by force. Ethical?

2. Personally, I don't see why the rights to my idea should ever be taken away from me. I don't believe it stifles progress. Here's an example, patents take like what 10 years to expire? Apple doesn't sit around for 10 years waiting for Microsoft's patents to expire. On the contrary they are extremely motivated to come up with something even better than whatever Microsoft is doing. New products come out every 6 months. And yes, I think IP should be able to be passed down via will the same as any other form of property.

Whose estate are you compensating for your use of the Pythagorean theorem? What about the guy that invented binary? Or the guy who thought of using an insulated copper conductor to transfer electrons? What about the people who created the very words we are using to have this debate?

3. If you are doing something with someone else's idea that takes money or food or time or energy away from the orignator then you are acting unethically. It doesn't matter how insignificant you think it is.

Please elaborate. What activities 'take' money or food or time or energy away from the originator?

Side note, few things bother me more than when some lazy idiot tries to explain why no one should "own" intellectual property.

Excuse me? I am an engineer, like yourself. Everything I design is proprietary. I still don't agree with the system.

 

[cqcn88]

So if it is the equivalent to physical property, then let's look at some hypotheticals.

Scenario 1: You stop at a red light. A man walks up to your door, pulls it open and tries to pull you out. He is about to steal your car! You pull your gun and put it to his head to protect your car by force. Ethical?

Scenario 2: You invent a joke. It's a real knee-slapper. You're thinking about taking it on the road to make some real cash. Something like "L. Neil Smith walks into a bar. Something something coon-fingering a wookie something something firefly anarchist long grass something." You tell this joke to your friend, Fred. Later that night, you hear Fred begin telling your joke to someone else. He is about to steal your joke! You put a gun to his head to protect your joke by force. Ethical?



Whose estate are you compensating for your use of the Pythagorean theorem? What about the guy that invented binary? Or the guy who thought of using an insulated copper conductor to transfer electrons? What about the people who created the very words we are using to have this debate?



Please elaborate. What activities 'take' money or food or time or energy away from the originator?



Excuse me? I am an engineer, like yourself. Everything I design is proprietary. I still don't agree with the system.

I just wrote a freakin essay answering all these points and lost it because this forum logs you out so when you hit submit reply you end up losing everything. I will sum up in a much shorter answer. I apologize.

First, in my last comment I was not referring to you or anyone else on this forum, I was actually thinking about a luney toon radio show host from NH who has nothing but disdain for the concept of IP. I apologize for any offense, it was not intended.

Scenario 1.

Blow him away. That car takes me to work every day.

Scenario 2.

You must declare whatever it is you want to claim as your own. Fred didn't know you were claiming the joke. I do not think someone should be allowed to steal a comedian's comedy routine and make money copying the whole thing.

Pythagorean theorem. Discoverd, not invented. Same for transfer of electrons through a conductor. You can't invent a mathmatical principle or a law of physics any more than you can invent gravity. I realize there is a fine line between discovering and inventing in some situations but most of the time I think the line can indeed be drawn. If someone makes it their purpose to discover things they are likely getting paid by grants and are called scientists.

Binary. Been in use for a long time according to wikipedia. Binary is a system of counting which at the core is a system of communication. No one owns communication nor should anyone. Binary happens to be incredibly useful for computer techologies which is probably why you brought it up. Base 10 is very useful for anyone with 10 fingers, that doesn't mean it can be "owned".

Words. No one person could possibly claim credit for words. Languages of today are mishmashes and bastardizations of older languages. Calling words intellectual property is silly.

I realize the scenario's you've laid out are intentionally extreme for the purpose of illustrating a point. Extreme's are often very useful for that purpose. My answer to that is I'm not particularly concerned with extremes like who "owns" counting. My point of view is that if I manage to come up with a great idea or original design for something using my time, energy, intellect, and education I want to be able to monetize it. If someone else can come along and take it, my time would have been better spent trying to learn how to be a farmer. But then who own's growing things?

 

[steveh_131]

First, in my last comment I was not referring to you or anyone else on this forum, I was actually thinking about a luney toon radio show host from NH who has nothing but disdain for the concept of IP. I apologize for any offense, it was not intended.

Ok, fair enough!

You must declare whatever it is you want to claim as your own. Fred didn't know you were claiming the joke. I do not think someone should be allowed to steal a comedian's comedy routine and make money copying the whole thing.

So assuming that you have declared your joke as your own, the gun to the head is ethically acceptable?

Pythagorean theorem. Discoverd, not invented. Same for transfer of electrons through a conductor. You can't invent a mathmatical principle or a law of physics any more than you can invent gravity. I realize there is a fine line between discovering and inventing in some situations but most of the time I think the line can indeed be drawn. If someone makes it their purpose to discover things they are likely getting paid by grants and are called scientists.

Binary. Been in use for a long time according to wikipedia. Binary is a system of counting which at the core is a system of communication. No one owns communication nor should anyone. Binary happens to be incredibly useful for computer techologies which is probably why you brought it up. Base 10 is very useful for anyone with 10 fingers, that doesn't mean it can be "owned".

Now I think we're just arguing semantics. Every innovation is simply a 'discovery' of a better way to perform a certain task. If binary can't be owned then neither can proprietary database communications or things like that.

Words. No one person could possibly claim credit for words. Languages of today are mishmashes and bastardizations of older languages. Calling words intellectual property is silly.

And yet the thread that spawned this one revolved around people putting a name on their purses. This was supposedly theft of intellectual property.

Let's put these ethical principles to the test.

Let's say I purchase a book. Would it be ethically acceptable for me to scan this book and let a friend read it? Why or why not?

 

[cqcn88]

Let's say I purchase a book. Would it be ethically acceptable for me to scan this book and let a friend read it? Why or why not?

Well lets take it to the extreme then, should you scan the book and put up online for the whole world to read? No. The person who published the book is depending on sales of that book to buy food for his family. So ethically no, you should not do that. Giving it to one person is the principally the same thing.

Now I think we're just arguing semantics. Every innovation is simply a 'discovery' of a better way to perform a certain task. If binary can't be owned then neither can proprietary database communications or things like that

Indeed, semantics. But I would argue that something clearly a discovery is something that could be done by complete accident and one cannot choose to use or not use it. Does that make sense? I mean a triangle can be / is described mathematically by the principals of pythagorean theorem whether not I or anyone else wants it to be. You can't stop math, you can't stop gravity. As I said before, or maybe I didn't, it might have been in my original essay, binary is a system of counting which at the core is communication. You can't "own" communication. I truly don't think you can lump communication into the category of "things" to be owned or not owned. It's not an original idea.

So assuming that you have declared your joke as your own, the gun to the head is ethically acceptable?

I wish I could just get out of this one because it's silly. First off, let the punishment fit the crime in all situations. I don't think gun to the head would be appropriate. Look, declare it as your own, take clear steps to monetize it within a reasonable amount of time and yes, it should be yours. I'm really trying to be consistent with the principal here even though the situation is ridiculous. There has to be a level of significance before any action is taken as well. Not principally but more economically. It wouldn't make any sense to get uptight about someone using someone else's joke unless it was clear that the person taking it was causing the originator to lose money for it, e.g. stealing a comedian's entire routine and performing it for money in the next club over.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I am also an engineer.

Our designs and processes are only ours so long as we keep them secret.

If you throw out a drawing, and someone digs it out of the trash and uses it to make your parts. Well then...you're just **** out of luck.

IP is only yours so long as you keep it yours. If we sell a drawing or a process, then it's not ours anymore.

This is where real IP diverges from entertainment. IMO, entertainment is not IP. How you supply that entertainment, could be IP, but the entertainment itself is a product. Once sold, you don't own it anymore. Same for software.

 

[JettaKnight]

I am also an engineer.

Me too.

Once sold, you don't own it anymore.

Very true. I can't reuse software components I developed for one customer on a project for another customer. It's unethical and illegal.

If you throw out a drawing, and someone digs it out of the trash and uses it to make your parts. Well then...you're just **** out of luck.

Very wrong. We go to great lengths to prevent this, but should a competitor steal a design, you'd better believe there'd be a lawsuit. Suppliers often provide me with source code to evaluate. If I use it, I'm expected to pay. If not, I'm expected to destroy all copies.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Well lets take it to the extreme then, should you scan the book and put up online for the whole world to read? No. The person who published the book is depending on sales of that book to buy food for his family. So ethically no, you should not do that. Giving it to one person is the principally the same thing.



Indeed, semantics. But I would argue that something clearly a discovery is something that could be done by complete accident and one cannot choose to use or not use it. Does that make sense? I mean a triangle can be / is described mathematically by the principals of pythagorean theorem whether not I or anyone else wants it to be. You can't stop math, you can't stop gravity. As I said before, or maybe I didn't, it might have been in my original essay, binary is a system of counting which at the core is communication. You can't "own" communication. I truly don't think you can lump communication into the category of "things" to be owned or not owned. It's not an original idea.




I wish I could just get out of this one because it's silly. First off, let the punishment fit the crime in all situations. I don't think gun to the head would be appropriate. Look, declare it as your own, take clear steps to monetize it within a reasonable amount of time and yes, it should be yours. I'm really trying to be consistent with the principal here even though the situation is ridiculous. There has to be a level of significance before any action is taken as well. Not principally but more economically. It wouldn't make any sense to get uptight about someone using someone else's joke unless it was clear that the person taking it was causing the originator to lose money for it, e.g. stealing a comedian's entire routine and performing it for money in the next club over.

Let's go back to words then. Since you claim you can't own them. What about people who copyright phrases or words? Like "Let's get ready to rumble" or, and even more ridiculous to me, the guy from Storage Wars who trademarked, "Yup." Because that's how he calls that he's bidding. Even though I've typed "yup" for years before that show existed, and been saying it for almost as long in almost the same inflection he does. Why does he get to own it?

Words cannot be owned. But they are. Ideas that haven't taken form can't be owned. Claiming that they can be is ridiculous. That's the problem with these huge patent wars. Apple patents thousands of things they never actually create just so no one else can use the idea, even if they come up with it independently. How is that fair?

 

[poptab]

This is an interesting thread. Apple is indeed a huge patent troll and I dont think that can be good for society. I dont blame them though. The system needs reformed or does it?

Very true. I can't reuse software components I developed for one customer on a project for another customer. It's unethical and illegal.

Why? That seems inefficient. Is it a standard part of a contract or what?

 

[poptab]

[ame]http://youtu.be/xVk77VQuPAY[/ame]

 

[poptab]

For a bunch of Constitutional scholars, many seem to have forgotten that before there WAS a Second Amendment- the Constitution specifically called for the protection of intellectual property in the form of copyrights and patents (Article 1, sec. 8). Now, whether Congress exercises that wisely or not is a different issue.

Your mad because we are debating the ethics of IP?!

 

[steveh_131]

Well lets take it to the extreme then, should you scan the book and put up online for the whole world to read? No. The person who published the book is depending on sales of that book to buy food for his family. So ethically no, you should not do that. Giving it to one person is the principally the same thing.

Then I would of course assume that you are also ethically opposed to loaning a book to a friend. That friend did not compensate the author for the book that they are reading. Right?

I wish I could just get out of this one because it's silly. First off, let the punishment fit the crime in all situations. I don't think gun to the head would be appropriate. Look, declare it as your own, take clear steps to monetize it within a reasonable amount of time and yes, it should be yours. I'm really trying to be consistent with the principal here even though the situation is ridiculous.

Ok, let's make the scenarios more similar monetarily. You tell someone an important trade secret. They are about to tell it to someone else. It's worth a whole lot more than your car. You put a gun to their head to prevent them from speaking this secret. Ethical?

Very true. I can't reuse software components I developed for one customer on a project for another customer. It's unethical and illegal.

What? Really? Why? You're taking this imaginary property crap to a whole new ridiculous level.

Very wrong. We go to great lengths to prevent this, but should a competitor steal a design, you'd better believe there'd be a lawsuit. Suppliers often provide me with source code to evaluate. If I use it, I'm expected to pay. If not, I'm expected to destroy all copies.

Perhaps you missed the entire premise of this thread. We're not debating legalities. We're debating ethics. Whether or not there would be a lawsuit does not apply.

For a bunch of Constitutional scholars, many seem to have forgotten that before there WAS a Second Amendment- the Constitution specifically called for the protection of intellectual property in the form of copyrights and patents (Article 1, sec. 8). Now, whether Congress exercises that wisely or not is a different issue.

No. No, nobody has forgotten that. It hasn't been brought up because it is not at all relevant to the discussion.

 

[steveh_131]

I am also an engineer.

Our designs and processes are only ours so long as we keep them secret.

If you throw out a drawing, and someone digs it out of the trash and uses it to make your parts. Well then...you're just **** out of luck.

IP is only yours so long as you keep it yours. If we sell a drawing or a process, then it's not ours anymore.

This is where real IP diverges from entertainment. IMO, entertainment is not IP. How you supply that entertainment, could be IP, but the entertainment itself is a product. Once sold, you don't own it anymore. Same for software.

I agree with this. I think it's a bit inconsistent to think that you still own information once you share it with someone else.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I'm an artist. I'm 43. 28 years ago I was 15, and selling art. Apparently, per some of the ideas in this thread, anything I did at that time is worthless and should be freely available since it did not become so famous that it is now public domain (which can't be considered copyrighted/trademarked any longer). Freelance artists don't really get a 401k plan. Copyrights are, in a sense, their 401k. But when yer all enthralled with how easy it is to copy something for free, there isn't much point in worrying about rich peoples big words like 'intellectual property'. They're just made up words.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm an artist. I'm 43. 28 years ago I was 15, and selling art. Apparently, per some of the ideas in this thread, anything I did at that time is worthless and should be freely available since it did not become so famous that it is now public domain (which can't be considered copyrighted/trademarked any longer). Freelance artists don't really get a 401k plan. Copyrights are, in a sense, their 401k. But when yer all enthralled with how easy it is to copy something for free, there isn't much point in worrying about rich peoples big words like 'intellectual property'. They're just made up words.

If your business model is not profitable in the absence of government interference then I would suggest altering your business plan. Not more government interference.

Creative works existed long before copyrights and will continue with or without them.