3 ms·

Are you saying that if I come up with a good idea, I don't have a right to protect that idea?

angrow 10y ago
The purpose of copyright and patent laws is to give the greatest benefit to society (in the American constitution, the phrasing is "to promote the useful arts and sciences"). The granting of temporary monopolies to registrants is a common tactic used to achieve that end, but not the only possible one, and one that admits of many variations (terms, extensions, and limitations vary across jurisdictions and over time). Maybe some people think that the exact laws we have right now are the best possible at serving the underlying purpose of the long-term enrichment of the public domain, but many seem to think that improvements could be made.
ewzimm 10y ago
Let's say you come up with a great idea, a universal cure for cancer, but it requires growing human stem cells in a lab and you're against that for religious reasons, so you patent it and make sure nobody ever uses it. There are a few issues here. First, you definitely didn't come up with that idea from nothing. You "stood on the shoulders of giants" and profited from thousands of years of scientific development. You almost certainly collaborated with lots of other people who might not have shared your personal values and contributed just as much or more than you did to its development. You happened to be the person who connected the final piece. Just how much control should that give you over the use of the idea? Some people would say it's hard to justify your absolute control over the use of that idea.
- juliangoldsmith 10y ago
  If you are the one responsible for pulling an idea together, even if you stood on the shoulders of giants, you should be able to profit from what you've done. With that said, something like the situation you described with the cure for cancer seems like a prime target for eminent domain. The government can, in theory, force you to sell them your patent for a reasonable amount, if it's in the public interest.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    The problem with this situation is that not everybody shares this ideology, just like not everybody would share the ideology of the person against using stem cells. You're saying that when a perosn synthesizes information in such a way that something sufficiently novel comes from it, that person should have control over the use of that idea and profit financially from it. That's a cultural concept rooted primarily in English law derived from a feudal system that was reformed by aristocrats who wanted more control from the monarchy. It took a lot of very specific historical events to develop that attitude toward property, let alone intellectual property. It's a claim that's impossible to justify except on inherited cultural values, and those values are constantly changing and unevenly supported in an increasingly global economy. When the British created a worldwide empire, they imposed their ideas on their colonies, but eventually the colonies got strong enough that they developed their own values and asserted independence against colonialism. Now we have the same kind of situation happening with a certain segment of the world, mostly from Europe and its former colonies, attempting to impose a kind of intellectual colonialism over the world by controlling the use of information and using the rest of the world as a resource and manufactirng base. The same forces that took down colonialism are at work fighting against intellectual property, except it's much easier to fight intellectual property than colonial rule.
    - juliangoldsmith 10y ago
      The ideology, and British colonialism is a red herring. What I am arguing is that if I come up with a novel idea, I have created something. If you've created something, someone should have a good reason to take it from you.
      - ewzimm 10y ago
        But those ideas are a matter of ideology, not logic or reason. Some cultures are individualistic and believe in personal property, others are collectivist and value social contribution, others are all over the spectrum. Nobody can say they have the right value on ownership because there is no correct answer, only personal and cultural values. You absolutely should stick to your convictions and believe in them, just don't expect everyone else to agree. Better to be open to the spectrum of opinions in my opinion.
je42 10y ago
Yup, because somebody else might have even the same idea before. Also, idea's are generally speaking very cheap. In a world where progress is made in "smallish" increments it doesn't make any sense to allow exclusive rights to the first one to apply for a patent. Furthermore, other industries that mainly idea-driven like fashion industry are less about protection, but more about advancing faster.

The purpose of copyright and patent laws is to give the greatest benefit to society (in the American constitution, the phrasing is "to promote the useful arts and sciences"). The granting of temporary monopolies to registrants is a common tactic used to achieve that end, but not the only possible one, and one that admits of many variations (terms, extensions, and limitations vary across jurisdictions and over time). Maybe some people think that the exact laws we have right now are the best possible at serving the underlying purpose of the long-term enrichment of the public domain, but many seem to think that improvements could be made.

ewzimm 10y ago

Let's say you come up with a great idea, a universal cure for cancer, but it requires growing human stem cells in a lab and you're against that for religious reasons, so you patent it and make sure nobody ever uses it. There are a few issues here. First, you definitely didn't come up with that idea from nothing. You "stood on the shoulders of giants" and profited from thousands of years of scientific development. You almost certainly collaborated with lots of other people who might not have shared your personal values and contributed just as much or more than you did to its development. You happened to be the person who connected the final piece. Just how much control should that give you over the use of the idea? Some people would say it's hard to justify your absolute control over the use of that idea.

juliangoldsmith 10y ago
If you are the one responsible for pulling an idea together, even if you stood on the shoulders of giants, you should be able to profit from what you've done. With that said, something like the situation you described with the cure for cancer seems like a prime target for eminent domain. The government can, in theory, force you to sell them your patent for a reasonable amount, if it's in the public interest.
- ewzimm 10y ago
  The problem with this situation is that not everybody shares this ideology, just like not everybody would share the ideology of the person against using stem cells. You're saying that when a perosn synthesizes information in such a way that something sufficiently novel comes from it, that person should have control over the use of that idea and profit financially from it. That's a cultural concept rooted primarily in English law derived from a feudal system that was reformed by aristocrats who wanted more control from the monarchy. It took a lot of very specific historical events to develop that attitude toward property, let alone intellectual property. It's a claim that's impossible to justify except on inherited cultural values, and those values are constantly changing and unevenly supported in an increasingly global economy. When the British created a worldwide empire, they imposed their ideas on their colonies, but eventually the colonies got strong enough that they developed their own values and asserted independence against colonialism. Now we have the same kind of situation happening with a certain segment of the world, mostly from Europe and its former colonies, attempting to impose a kind of intellectual colonialism over the world by controlling the use of information and using the rest of the world as a resource and manufactirng base. The same forces that took down colonialism are at work fighting against intellectual property, except it's much easier to fight intellectual property than colonial rule.
  - juliangoldsmith 10y ago
    The ideology, and British colonialism is a red herring. What I am arguing is that if I come up with a novel idea, I have created something. If you've created something, someone should have a good reason to take it from you.
    - ewzimm 10y ago
      But those ideas are a matter of ideology, not logic or reason. Some cultures are individualistic and believe in personal property, others are collectivist and value social contribution, others are all over the spectrum. Nobody can say they have the right value on ownership because there is no correct answer, only personal and cultural values. You absolutely should stick to your convictions and believe in them, just don't expect everyone else to agree. Better to be open to the spectrum of opinions in my opinion.

je42 10y ago

Yup, because somebody else might have even the same idea before. Also, idea's are generally speaking very cheap. In a world where progress is made in "smallish" increments it doesn't make any sense to allow exclusive rights to the first one to apply for a patent. Furthermore, other industries that mainly idea-driven like fashion industry are less about protection, but more about advancing faster.