12 ms·

I know this is a controversial view, but how much progress has been lost to intellectual property in general? I do not think the temporary monopoly on an idea i

I know this is a controversial view, but how much progress has been lost to intellectual property in general? I do not think the temporary monopoly on an idea incentives innovation. If it does, it encourages the people who I don't want to be innovating in the first place. If someone sees that as attractive they will probably take other anti-competitive steps once in a position of power. If people were free to copy ideas and products, we would make an extraordinary amount of progress in a very short time.

projektir 8y ago
I would say the motivation is important. We do not live in a society where one can simply do a lot of work and see nothing for it without consequence. The problem is not originally with intellectual property, the problem is that every person has to justify their right to exist, and they do that through acquiring money by some means, which means a big chunk of what they're doing has to be concerned with acquiring money. Things like research and innovation take a lot of time. We already have somewhat of this situation in reality. Many people involved in research a very poorly paid. Is it really resulting in better/faster research, or just people moving from academia to industry, and a lot of benefits pocketed by side actors? > If it does, it encourages the people who I don't want to be innovating in the first place. I.e., people who do not have lots of resources and need to figure out how to survive? You only want to see innovation from rich people with nice safety nets?
- akqu 8y ago
  The problem with intellectual property is that it favors the sum, rather than the rate, of innovation. Companies have a natural incentive not to innovate. Since you make profit by not spending the revenue of your previous innovation on new innovation. If you want to have continuous innovation the profit should instead be based on your rate of innovation. Meaning that you don't get a monopoly on past achievements. That is how you don't have to wait decades for new cars or rockets while people with spreadsheets calculate their most opportune moment to start innovating again.
  - brownbat 8y ago
    It's weird how different graphics cards are from pharmaceuticals. Both have big startup and research costs, but GPUs are basically obsolete in a couple years, they run the supply out and constantly plan to move to the next model. Pharma you can do that, or build a portfolio and collect rents for a while. It's weird that patent durations are one sized fits all, even though how long you can capture value is completely dependent on the industry.
- komali2 8y ago
  In my mind, it boils down to an extremely simple question - if money didn't exist, and you didn't have to work to stay alive, would people do job x or job y? The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. In a society like this, things might move a little more slowly (probably we wouldn't have the airline or public Transit systems we have now), but things would absolutely still get done.
  - projektir 8y ago
    > The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. Volunteers and especially personal projects really strike me as activities one undertakes when they have secondary means of survival and/or safety nets. The latter is commonly mentioned as problematic in terms of requiring GitHubs from job applicants. The existence of these people is not sufficient, we also have to prove that these people are not distributed in some highly biased way, which I suspect, they are. There could be a lot of consequence to such biases. For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use.
    - peterburkimsher 8y ago
      I've done personal projects precisely because I don't have another safety net. Posting my projects here on Hacker News gets attention, which might possibly lead to a job offer. (In practice this doesn't work all the time, but it's been more successful in the past than trying to cold-email HR departments). I think personal projects show my interests and skills better than interviews. On that note, I am looking for work, and I'll do your (2 month) project for free just to get a reference letter. The 2 month limit is because I'll be out of cash by then.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use. I think you'll have much better luck with such things with the hobby group. Commercial software is done by focusing on tasks that make money. Blind people are unlikely to make you money, unless you fall under regulations that will fine you for not catering for this group. Hobby software is focused on making the actual artifact, the program, better. Getting it accessible to blind users is clearly making it better.
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  Where did you get that I want to only see innovation from rich people? I explain in the next sentence the type of people who I do not want in positions of power, those who take anti-competitive steps. I do not think that is at all synonymous with people who have no resources. You put those people in power and they fuck their workers. Anyway, even with temporary monopolies, the legal system is stacked in the favor of those with money, so I don't really see how that helps people with no resources.
- incompatible 8y ago
  There's nothing wrong with people getting paid for doing good work, and nothing wrong with that work being widely available, for free, to everybody who can use it. The problem is fixation on an economic system that simply doesn't work in every situation. Information shouldn't be packaged and artificially rationed just so that it can be crammed into a market model.
- intended 8y ago
  The thing is it’s not just people. Corporations are shifting copyright law to their favor. And as institutions they can do things that individuals can’t. Like aggregate content and become forces of nature in their own right.
628C6l0 8y ago
This is a very dangerous logic because it implies we should be fine with China stealing our intellectual property. The view should be qualified in some way so it doesn't have that consequence. They are our enemies.
- dang 8y ago
  Please keep nationalistic flamewar off HN.
edanm 8y ago
> I know this is a controversial view, but how much progress has been lost to intellectual property in general? I do not think the temporary monopoly on an idea incentives innovation. Why not? You're saying things that seem to fly in the face of what almost any economist thinks, that fly in the face of common sense, and that fly in the face of actually asking people why they do what they do. So why do you think what you're saying is true?
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  From personal experience, which I know is not a great indicator, but if it holds true then it would be the society I want to live in (which biases me to the idea). I like to build, a lot. I'm obsessive about it. I would like to build something useful, have it picked up freely, then move on to the next thing that I think would make a difference. I think a lot of innovators are like this. People like money, of course, but I think the builders would still build with no competitive protections.
  - edanm 8y ago
    Well, I'd love to live in that society too, but like you say, that's not really indicative. And remember, the question isn't just whether builders like you will build cool things. It's whether builders that build boring but marginally useful products will build them. Lots of people will still build games, but how many will still build web applications for helping perform tax audits for lawyers? Sure biologists would still do interesting work, but how many of them will personally put up the millions of dollars in funding necessary to create drugs that sightly improve some patient outcomes? I'm not saying patents are implemented perfectly right now, or that there aren't better possible alternatives (and I think at least one of my examples is a case where things usually aren't protected by patents). But I think it's wrong to assume that innovation will happen At the same rate if you remove most of the money in it. (and again, just look at the history here - almost all innovation for hundreds of years came from the few really privileged few who could do innovation for fun, afaict)
    - civilitty 8y ago
dredmorbius 8y ago
Property is theft. Property rights are predicated on exclusion. This is especially true of intellectual property. Todays patent wars (yes, I'm aware the present article addresses copyright) feel new, but in fact are merely echoes of earlier abuses -- Watt's stem engine patents and extension (1770s), Westinghous, Edison and lightbulbs, or Norbert Wiener's lifelong excoriation of AT&T, refeereenced in this brief video clip: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ys4XEtVcTFI https://youtube.com/watch?v=ys4XEtVcTFI Copyright carries absolutely massive deadweight losses.
- anticensor 8y ago
  If you abolish all property rights, all social trust would eradicate. I also think intellectual property is nonsense, but you cannot easily extend that notion into all kinds of property.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    We can debate what property rights we do or don't care to maintain, or how to offset their harms -- taxes on wealth, IP renewals, and the like, would likely help, for example. The principle of private land ownership, as distinguished from either common holdings or a tenancy granted by (usually) royal charter, is fairly novel. And the distortionary consequences of rents amongst the oldest and most pernicious problems in economics. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm But it is not possible to argue against property's very mechanism. It is a grant of right of exclusion under legal sanction. Proudhon's original words on this are well worth reading, if an unpopular opinion these days.

projektir 8y ago

I would say the motivation is important. We do not live in a society where one can simply do a lot of work and see nothing for it without consequence. The problem is not originally with intellectual property, the problem is that every person has to justify their right to exist, and they do that through acquiring money by some means, which means a big chunk of what they're doing has to be concerned with acquiring money. Things like research and innovation take a lot of time. We already have somewhat of this situation in reality. Many people involved in research a very poorly paid. Is it really resulting in better/faster research, or just people moving from academia to industry, and a lot of benefits pocketed by side actors? > If it does, it encourages the people who I don't want to be innovating in the first place. I.e., people who do not have lots of resources and need to figure out how to survive? You only want to see innovation from rich people with nice safety nets?

akqu 8y ago
The problem with intellectual property is that it favors the sum, rather than the rate, of innovation. Companies have a natural incentive not to innovate. Since you make profit by not spending the revenue of your previous innovation on new innovation. If you want to have continuous innovation the profit should instead be based on your rate of innovation. Meaning that you don't get a monopoly on past achievements. That is how you don't have to wait decades for new cars or rockets while people with spreadsheets calculate their most opportune moment to start innovating again.
- brownbat 8y ago
  It's weird how different graphics cards are from pharmaceuticals. Both have big startup and research costs, but GPUs are basically obsolete in a couple years, they run the supply out and constantly plan to move to the next model. Pharma you can do that, or build a portfolio and collect rents for a while. It's weird that patent durations are one sized fits all, even though how long you can capture value is completely dependent on the industry.
komali2 8y ago
In my mind, it boils down to an extremely simple question - if money didn't exist, and you didn't have to work to stay alive, would people do job x or job y? The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. In a society like this, things might move a little more slowly (probably we wouldn't have the airline or public Transit systems we have now), but things would absolutely still get done.
- projektir 8y ago
  > The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. Volunteers and especially personal projects really strike me as activities one undertakes when they have secondary means of survival and/or safety nets. The latter is commonly mentioned as problematic in terms of requiring GitHubs from job applicants. The existence of these people is not sufficient, we also have to prove that these people are not distributed in some highly biased way, which I suspect, they are. There could be a lot of consequence to such biases. For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use.
  - peterburkimsher 8y ago
    I've done personal projects precisely because I don't have another safety net. Posting my projects here on Hacker News gets attention, which might possibly lead to a job offer. (In practice this doesn't work all the time, but it's been more successful in the past than trying to cold-email HR departments). I think personal projects show my interests and skills better than interviews. On that note, I am looking for work, and I'll do your (2 month) project for free just to get a reference letter. The 2 month limit is because I'll be out of cash by then.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use. I think you'll have much better luck with such things with the hobby group. Commercial software is done by focusing on tasks that make money. Blind people are unlikely to make you money, unless you fall under regulations that will fine you for not catering for this group. Hobby software is focused on making the actual artifact, the program, better. Getting it accessible to blind users is clearly making it better.
TACIXAT 8y ago
Where did you get that I want to only see innovation from rich people? I explain in the next sentence the type of people who I do not want in positions of power, those who take anti-competitive steps. I do not think that is at all synonymous with people who have no resources. You put those people in power and they fuck their workers. Anyway, even with temporary monopolies, the legal system is stacked in the favor of those with money, so I don't really see how that helps people with no resources.
incompatible 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with people getting paid for doing good work, and nothing wrong with that work being widely available, for free, to everybody who can use it. The problem is fixation on an economic system that simply doesn't work in every situation. Information shouldn't be packaged and artificially rationed just so that it can be crammed into a market model.
intended 8y ago
The thing is it’s not just people. Corporations are shifting copyright law to their favor. And as institutions they can do things that individuals can’t. Like aggregate content and become forces of nature in their own right.

628C6l0 8y ago

This is a very dangerous logic because it implies we should be fine with China stealing our intellectual property. The view should be qualified in some way so it doesn't have that consequence. They are our enemies.

dang 8y ago
Please keep nationalistic flamewar off HN.

edanm 8y ago

> I know this is a controversial view, but how much progress has been lost to intellectual property in general? I do not think the temporary monopoly on an idea incentives innovation. Why not? You're saying things that seem to fly in the face of what almost any economist thinks, that fly in the face of common sense, and that fly in the face of actually asking people why they do what they do. So why do you think what you're saying is true?

TACIXAT 8y ago
From personal experience, which I know is not a great indicator, but if it holds true then it would be the society I want to live in (which biases me to the idea). I like to build, a lot. I'm obsessive about it. I would like to build something useful, have it picked up freely, then move on to the next thing that I think would make a difference. I think a lot of innovators are like this. People like money, of course, but I think the builders would still build with no competitive protections.
- edanm 8y ago
  Well, I'd love to live in that society too, but like you say, that's not really indicative. And remember, the question isn't just whether builders like you will build cool things. It's whether builders that build boring but marginally useful products will build them. Lots of people will still build games, but how many will still build web applications for helping perform tax audits for lawyers? Sure biologists would still do interesting work, but how many of them will personally put up the millions of dollars in funding necessary to create drugs that sightly improve some patient outcomes? I'm not saying patents are implemented perfectly right now, or that there aren't better possible alternatives (and I think at least one of my examples is a case where things usually aren't protected by patents). But I think it's wrong to assume that innovation will happen At the same rate if you remove most of the money in it. (and again, just look at the history here - almost all innovation for hundreds of years came from the few really privileged few who could do innovation for fun, afaict)
  - civilitty 8y ago

dredmorbius 8y ago

Property is theft. Property rights are predicated on exclusion. This is especially true of intellectual property. Todays patent wars (yes, I'm aware the present article addresses copyright) feel new, but in fact are merely echoes of earlier abuses -- Watt's stem engine patents and extension (1770s), Westinghous, Edison and lightbulbs, or Norbert Wiener's lifelong excoriation of AT&T, refeereenced in this brief video clip: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ys4XEtVcTFI https://youtube.com/watch?v=ys4XEtVcTFI Copyright carries absolutely massive deadweight losses.

anticensor 8y ago
If you abolish all property rights, all social trust would eradicate. I also think intellectual property is nonsense, but you cannot easily extend that notion into all kinds of property.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  We can debate what property rights we do or don't care to maintain, or how to offset their harms -- taxes on wealth, IP renewals, and the like, would likely help, for example. The principle of private land ownership, as distinguished from either common holdings or a tenancy granted by (usually) royal charter, is fairly novel. And the distortionary consequences of rents amongst the oldest and most pernicious problems in economics. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm But it is not possible to argue against property's very mechanism. It is a grant of right of exclusion under legal sanction. Proudhon's original words on this are well worth reading, if an unpopular opinion these days.