4 ms·

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 re

by 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.
  - stevenwiles 10y ago
    So you're saying that a person should not be able to profit off their original idea because they don't actually have an original idea? Because truly original ideas don't actually exist, they are merely extensions of the work of people that came before me? You realize by that logic that no one is truly responsible for anything as an individual, that nothing they do can possibly create new value because they are simply doing what they next guy was going to do any way? Sorry, ewzimm, but I definitely do not agree with your ideology here. I do not agree with you that a person is only worth the physical labor they are capable of providing. Can I ask what you think societies and governments should do with their elderly and disabled? I'm kind of scared of what your answer is going to be......

by ewzimm 10y ago

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.
- stevenwiles 10y ago
  So you're saying that a person should not be able to profit off their original idea because they don't actually have an original idea? Because truly original ideas don't actually exist, they are merely extensions of the work of people that came before me? You realize by that logic that no one is truly responsible for anything as an individual, that nothing they do can possibly create new value because they are simply doing what they next guy was going to do any way? Sorry, ewzimm, but I definitely do not agree with your ideology here. I do not agree with you that a person is only worth the physical labor they are capable of providing. Can I ask what you think societies and governments should do with their elderly and disabled? I'm kind of scared of what your answer is going to be......