5 ms·

The simple use of the term "IP" goes against your goal. All these things we call "IP" are mostly unrelated to the notion of "property" itself ; they're related

by Ace17 10y ago

The simple use of the term "IP" goes against your goal. All these things we call "IP" are mostly unrelated to the notion of "property" itself ; they're related to temporary government-enforced monopolies. This simplistic view as a "property", which is a very familiar notion for most of us, confuses people into thinking that they could, and should be able to "own", for example, a joke, an idea for a business, or any kind of idea, the same way they can today own their car or their house. The law is way more complicated than that, and by default, ideas can't be owned (and for that matter, can't be "stolen" either). I don't think we want this to change. However, it might be desirable to get this into peoples' mind.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> The simple use of the term "IP" goes against your goal. All these things we call "IP" are mostly unrelated to the notion of "property" itself ; they're related to temporary government-enforced monopolies. It also lumps together many unrelated things. There is no big trouble with trademarks. Copyright itself isn't even a problem, the problem there is DRM. But software patents are unredeemable. They aren't all the same.
- jordigh 10y ago
  There's also a bunch of other mostly unrelated stuff that gets called intellectual property, such as regional designations (e.g. "designed in California") and ship hull designs, which receive their own special treatment: https://www.quora.com/Why-were-boat-hull-designs-specifically-protected-by-the-DMCA https://www.quora.com/Why-were-boat-hull-designs-specificall... Each of these "intellectual properties" has its own special nuances and treatments, and often completely different laws. You have to demonstrate originality to copyright something, but you can trademark the most unoriginal things. You have to demonstrate that something has a function before you can patent it, but you can copyright the most useless things. You need to demonstrate that something really was created where you want to regionally designate it, but you don't need to prove anything to trademark it. Lumping them all together is like saying programming, literature, mathematics, and theatre are all the same just because they all happen to have some sort of abstraction to them.
  - Ace17 10y ago
    Dude! programming, literature, mathematics and theatre are all "text stuff"!
dragonwriter 10y ago
> All these things we call "IP" are mostly unrelated to the notion of "property" itself ; they're related to temporary government-enforced monopolies. All "property" is government enforced monopolies, and much of it outside of IP (and especially much of the broader class of intangible personal property of which IP is itself as subclass) is also either temporary or conditional in nature.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The difference is, a property right to a single parcel of land doesn't give you market power. You don't own every similar parcel of land. It isn't a monopoly in the antitrust sense. But a patent on a device does exactly that.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The difference is, a property right to a single parcel of land doesn't give you market power. Depends on the features of the parcel and the nature of the market for use of it.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > Depends on the features of the parcel and the nature of the market for use of it. And in the patent case it doesn't.
      - throwawaykf05 10y ago
        Of course it does. The claims define what a patent covers. Noting that the vast majority (95%+?) of patents go unused, it's reasonable to assume that they have some correlation with market usage. What other hypothesis would you posit for the over abundance of value-less patents? Mine is that most ideas have no market value terrible, hence most patents don't either.
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago

by Ace17 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> The simple use of the term "IP" goes against your goal. All these things we call "IP" are mostly unrelated to the notion of "property" itself ; they're related to temporary government-enforced monopolies. It also lumps together many unrelated things. There is no big trouble with trademarks. Copyright itself isn't even a problem, the problem there is DRM. But software patents are unredeemable. They aren't all the same.

jordigh 10y ago
There's also a bunch of other mostly unrelated stuff that gets called intellectual property, such as regional designations (e.g. "designed in California") and ship hull designs, which receive their own special treatment: https://www.quora.com/Why-were-boat-hull-designs-specifically-protected-by-the-DMCA https://www.quora.com/Why-were-boat-hull-designs-specificall... Each of these "intellectual properties" has its own special nuances and treatments, and often completely different laws. You have to demonstrate originality to copyright something, but you can trademark the most unoriginal things. You have to demonstrate that something has a function before you can patent it, but you can copyright the most useless things. You need to demonstrate that something really was created where you want to regionally designate it, but you don't need to prove anything to trademark it. Lumping them all together is like saying programming, literature, mathematics, and theatre are all the same just because they all happen to have some sort of abstraction to them.
- Ace17 10y ago
  Dude! programming, literature, mathematics and theatre are all "text stuff"!

dragonwriter 10y ago

> All these things we call "IP" are mostly unrelated to the notion of "property" itself ; they're related to temporary government-enforced monopolies. All "property" is government enforced monopolies, and much of it outside of IP (and especially much of the broader class of intangible personal property of which IP is itself as subclass) is also either temporary or conditional in nature.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
The difference is, a property right to a single parcel of land doesn't give you market power. You don't own every similar parcel of land. It isn't a monopoly in the antitrust sense. But a patent on a device does exactly that.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The difference is, a property right to a single parcel of land doesn't give you market power. Depends on the features of the parcel and the nature of the market for use of it.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Depends on the features of the parcel and the nature of the market for use of it. And in the patent case it doesn't.
    - throwawaykf05 10y ago
      Of course it does. The claims define what a patent covers. Noting that the vast majority (95%+?) of patents go unused, it's reasonable to assume that they have some correlation with market usage. What other hypothesis would you posit for the over abundance of value-less patents? Mine is that most ideas have no market value terrible, hence most patents don't either.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago