5 ms·

I’m sure you don’t mind if I break into your house and start living there. I mean, you already spent the money there’s no need for me to spend it again on the s

I’m sure you don’t mind if I break into your house and start living there. I mean, you already spent the money there’s no need for me to spend it again on the same thing.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
That's a terribly poor analogy. If you break into my house and start living there, you occupy space and resources I could use myself, IP theft does not deprive the originator of the invention or even first mover advantage profits. It just prevents IP from being used to keep 3rd world nations there. The U.S. did the same to Europe in the 17/18th centuries when IT need to bring itself up to par, so did Japan in the 70s/80s - so did the Europeans to the Chinese before that. China will, (and already does to an extent), innovate and enrich the world, it just needs to catch up fast and this is the best way to do it.
- PedroBatista 8y ago
  But I wouldn’t kick you out of your house, I would just be there chillin’. Now seriously, you’re trying to justify theft using the old “we’re so little and innocent and they are so powerful and evil”. Just stop.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    IP theft would be like looking at my house and building a very similar one, or perhaps even peeking inside via the windows to note down the exact furniture. I'm not trying to say that it is a flawless way to go about it, or that anybody's 'evil', but please stop pretending that it is not a stage of every country's development at some point. Europe did it, Russia did it, the U.S. did it, Japan did it and now China does it. Perhaps that should tell you something. In the end, this helps a country to move past sweat shops and the like faster and am certainly not going to protest too loud against that.
z3phyr 8y ago
I would not mind if you copy my house internals and my way of life in a cheaper and more efficient manner. I would also not mind if you improve upon those designs(I would encourage you to do so). Find and Reverse Engineer my designs and improve them. I would mind if you break into my house.
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  Then you should distribute the plans. R&D documents are not distributed fyi. Totally different things. PS. I do agree the example isn't that good, because everyone has other opinions. But then again, i don't know if your architect would appreciate it, if you give your plans to someone else. Because he created it, not you.
geofft 8y ago
This is a frustrating line of argument because it ignores the entire reason that opponents of intellectual property are opponents of intellectual property: that intellectual property can be duplicated without harm to the owner. Protection of real estate or other physical property is rooted in the principle that depriving the original owner of the use of their property is unjust. "Theft" of intellectual property does not deprive the original owner of anything; it simply (perhaps) makes the potential market more competitive. I really wish we would be able to move past these extremely basic arguments and have some discussion of the topic that isn't repeating the same thing over and over. It's fine to disagree with the duplication argument, but it's a waste of everyone's time to pretend it doesn't exist.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > without harm to the owner i don't quite see it. if company A aims at the global market with a uniquely innovative product and then company B brings a copy of that product to the global market ten years later, then company A has enjoyed profitability of a unique product for ten years. but what if company B spies on company A's process and steals copies of its designs and so brings a copy of that product to market ten months later? isn't that depriving the original owner, company A, of some profits?
  - geofft 8y ago
    Depriving someone of potential profits isn't legally actionable harm. Otherwise we'd have to say that entering a market as a lower-cost and/or higher-quality competitor is a violation of the property rights, a theft of profit, of the existing participants. You may or may not have a right to a fair market, and fairness may or may not include the right to secret research and development, but it's not because an unfair market harms your property rights or is "theft."
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      ok, but ... you originally said "harm" and now you're saying "legally actionable harm"
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
I absolutely don't mind you copying my house and living in that copy, which is equivalent. However, the parent asked for a justification, not for my opinion or position.

I’m sure you don’t mind if I break into your house and start living there. I mean, you already spent the money there’s no need for me to spend it again on the same thing.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

That's a terribly poor analogy. If you break into my house and start living there, you occupy space and resources I could use myself, IP theft does not deprive the originator of the invention or even first mover advantage profits. It just prevents IP from being used to keep 3rd world nations there. The U.S. did the same to Europe in the 17/18th centuries when IT need to bring itself up to par, so did Japan in the 70s/80s - so did the Europeans to the Chinese before that. China will, (and already does to an extent), innovate and enrich the world, it just needs to catch up fast and this is the best way to do it.

PedroBatista 8y ago
But I wouldn’t kick you out of your house, I would just be there chillin’. Now seriously, you’re trying to justify theft using the old “we’re so little and innocent and they are so powerful and evil”. Just stop.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  IP theft would be like looking at my house and building a very similar one, or perhaps even peeking inside via the windows to note down the exact furniture. I'm not trying to say that it is a flawless way to go about it, or that anybody's 'evil', but please stop pretending that it is not a stage of every country's development at some point. Europe did it, Russia did it, the U.S. did it, Japan did it and now China does it. Perhaps that should tell you something. In the end, this helps a country to move past sweat shops and the like faster and am certainly not going to protest too loud against that.

z3phyr 8y ago

I would not mind if you copy my house internals and my way of life in a cheaper and more efficient manner. I would also not mind if you improve upon those designs(I would encourage you to do so). Find and Reverse Engineer my designs and improve them. I would mind if you break into my house.

NicoJuicy 8y ago
Then you should distribute the plans. R&D documents are not distributed fyi. Totally different things. PS. I do agree the example isn't that good, because everyone has other opinions. But then again, i don't know if your architect would appreciate it, if you give your plans to someone else. Because he created it, not you.

geofft 8y ago

This is a frustrating line of argument because it ignores the entire reason that opponents of intellectual property are opponents of intellectual property: that intellectual property can be duplicated without harm to the owner. Protection of real estate or other physical property is rooted in the principle that depriving the original owner of the use of their property is unjust. "Theft" of intellectual property does not deprive the original owner of anything; it simply (perhaps) makes the potential market more competitive. I really wish we would be able to move past these extremely basic arguments and have some discussion of the topic that isn't repeating the same thing over and over. It's fine to disagree with the duplication argument, but it's a waste of everyone's time to pretend it doesn't exist.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
> without harm to the owner i don't quite see it. if company A aims at the global market with a uniquely innovative product and then company B brings a copy of that product to the global market ten years later, then company A has enjoyed profitability of a unique product for ten years. but what if company B spies on company A's process and steals copies of its designs and so brings a copy of that product to market ten months later? isn't that depriving the original owner, company A, of some profits?
- geofft 8y ago
  Depriving someone of potential profits isn't legally actionable harm. Otherwise we'd have to say that entering a market as a lower-cost and/or higher-quality competitor is a violation of the property rights, a theft of profit, of the existing participants. You may or may not have a right to a fair market, and fairness may or may not include the right to secret research and development, but it's not because an unfair market harms your property rights or is "theft."
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    ok, but ... you originally said "harm" and now you're saying "legally actionable harm"

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

I absolutely don't mind you copying my house and living in that copy, which is equivalent. However, the parent asked for a justification, not for my opinion or position.