5 ms·

You're channeling Thomas Jefferson, who himself channeled a Zoroastrian idea. Jefferson said: "... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whol

You're channeling Thomas Jefferson, who himself channeled a Zoroastrian idea. Jefferson said: "... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me." [0] The flaw in this concept is the free-rider problem: 1. Not all new IP can be created as a side project without funding. Suppose that I have to come up with an investment of $X million to pay for the goods and services needed to develop something. (Even assigning existing employees to do the work is an investment, because the money used to pay them presumably could be used for something else — i.e., investing in the new thing represents opportunity cost.) Suppose also that the resulting IP is easily copied once the new product or service is out in the open. Without some kind of legal monopoly under IP law, copiers — who aren't burdened by my development costs — can quickly run the market price down to marginal cost. 2. A marginal-cost market price means that I can't charge enough to be able to recoup my investment while still staying competitive. That, in turn, means that I'm unlikely to be willing (or even able) to fund the investment needed to develop the IP. 3. That's why the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 8, allows Congress to create IP rights for limited times. [0] https://uh.edu/engines/epi792.htm https://uh.edu/engines/epi792.htm

waterhouse 6y ago
There are free-rider problems everywhere. From a "rights" perspective, the fact that you can see a free-rider problem and have an idea for some kind of law that you think would improve incentives doesn't justify using legal force to impose these changes on everyone else. But I'm not sure how many people there are these days for whom a "rights" argument carries weight. For a more empirical approach, I think it's worth looking at "Against Intellectual Monopoly" [1], from 2008. "Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?" [2] may be of particular interest. [1] http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... [2] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal08.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal08.pdf
- 6510 6y ago
  Very good stuff to read. I'm sure many like me came to the same conclusion on a [shall we say] more emotional level where a few good examples are enough to tip the scale. That book really demolish the monopoly rights from a functional perspective. An argument much more convincing for those who still think patents have merit. Prince applauded Napster and said people could finally go back to making music for the sake of making music. I personally don't consider any entertainment important enough to play a role in the design of society. As long as people are working themselves to death merely to sustain themselves they shouldn't be made to pay for your entertainment in any way. That it also doesn't make any technical sense never truly occurred to me.
lend000 6y ago
The fundamental issue with our copyright and patents laws are the length of validity. This in turn breeds more issues (with patents in particular) encouraging frivolous patents because there is such a long potential return on investment period. I recommend we decrease patent durations of all varieties by about 50% (patents should never last longer than 10 years as they do now [0]). For copyrights, there is some merit to not allowing others to take over your work during the life of the author. But for anonymous works, works that have transferred ownership from the author, and for copyright terms after the death of the author, I would agree to a similar limit of 10 years of copyright. [0] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/duration-of-patent-protection/#:~:text=Patents%20are%20classified%20as%20utility,date%20of%20the%20patent%20application https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/duratio....
- account42 6y ago
  > For copyrights, there is some merit to not allowing others to take over your work during the life of the author. Care to expand on that?
  - Shared404 6y ago
    If I'm understanding correctly, they are saying that people shouldn't be able to take over a copyrighted work during the lifetime of the original creator. I would think this would make sense in some cases, like writing a story, and less sense in some others (software source code).
- nabeelms 6y ago
  Small nitpick here. For drugs, novel drugs in particular, 20 years is actually the required amount of time for the pharma companies to actually turn a profit. The patent applications are submitted as soon as a viable drug is discovered. After this, it requires 10-15 years of animal testing, clinical trials, etc with costs amounting to 100s of millions to billions of dollars before it can be brought to market. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.420 https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.4...
basch 6y ago
The initial conclusion your parent presents is the exact ruling in Dowling v. United States. >Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985... ..... I do think grouping all IP into a bucket muddies the conversation. Trademark infringement, where one assumes the name of another product, possibly selling a counterfeit is closer to theft. It involves defrauding the consumer, and displaces a legitimate sale with a copy. Copying a product, and selling it or giving it away free is one type of problem, but assuming someone elses trademark to mislead is a different magnitude of problem.
deleuze 6y ago
This assumes the creation of intellectual property is socially productive in itself. There's plenty of an actual property that doesn't need to exist, even if it costs a lot of money to develop. There's no reason the state couldn't efficiently allocate resources for the rest and give it immediately to the public domain.
pasquinelli 6y ago
seems like a basic problem with our economic system if there're useful things that need to be done but no one is able to do it without it costing them. or, if most ip isn't useful, then why do we need to incentivize it so much?

waterhouse 6y ago

There are free-rider problems everywhere. From a "rights" perspective, the fact that you can see a free-rider problem and have an idea for some kind of law that you think would improve incentives doesn't justify using legal force to impose these changes on everyone else. But I'm not sure how many people there are these days for whom a "rights" argument carries weight. For a more empirical approach, I think it's worth looking at "Against Intellectual Monopoly" [1], from 2008. "Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?" [2] may be of particular interest. [1] http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... [2] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal08.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal08.pdf

6510 6y ago
Very good stuff to read. I'm sure many like me came to the same conclusion on a [shall we say] more emotional level where a few good examples are enough to tip the scale. That book really demolish the monopoly rights from a functional perspective. An argument much more convincing for those who still think patents have merit. Prince applauded Napster and said people could finally go back to making music for the sake of making music. I personally don't consider any entertainment important enough to play a role in the design of society. As long as people are working themselves to death merely to sustain themselves they shouldn't be made to pay for your entertainment in any way. That it also doesn't make any technical sense never truly occurred to me.

lend000 6y ago

The fundamental issue with our copyright and patents laws are the length of validity. This in turn breeds more issues (with patents in particular) encouraging frivolous patents because there is such a long potential return on investment period. I recommend we decrease patent durations of all varieties by about 50% (patents should never last longer than 10 years as they do now [0]). For copyrights, there is some merit to not allowing others to take over your work during the life of the author. But for anonymous works, works that have transferred ownership from the author, and for copyright terms after the death of the author, I would agree to a similar limit of 10 years of copyright. [0] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/duration-of-patent-protection/#:~:text=Patents%20are%20classified%20as%20utility,date%20of%20the%20patent%20application https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/duratio....

account42 6y ago
> For copyrights, there is some merit to not allowing others to take over your work during the life of the author. Care to expand on that?
- Shared404 6y ago
  If I'm understanding correctly, they are saying that people shouldn't be able to take over a copyrighted work during the lifetime of the original creator. I would think this would make sense in some cases, like writing a story, and less sense in some others (software source code).
nabeelms 6y ago
Small nitpick here. For drugs, novel drugs in particular, 20 years is actually the required amount of time for the pharma companies to actually turn a profit. The patent applications are submitted as soon as a viable drug is discovered. After this, it requires 10-15 years of animal testing, clinical trials, etc with costs amounting to 100s of millions to billions of dollars before it can be brought to market. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.420 https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.4...

basch 6y ago

The initial conclusion your parent presents is the exact ruling in Dowling v. United States. >Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985... ..... I do think grouping all IP into a bucket muddies the conversation. Trademark infringement, where one assumes the name of another product, possibly selling a counterfeit is closer to theft. It involves defrauding the consumer, and displaces a legitimate sale with a copy. Copying a product, and selling it or giving it away free is one type of problem, but assuming someone elses trademark to mislead is a different magnitude of problem.

deleuze 6y ago

This assumes the creation of intellectual property is socially productive in itself. There's plenty of an actual property that doesn't need to exist, even if it costs a lot of money to develop. There's no reason the state couldn't efficiently allocate resources for the rest and give it immediately to the public domain.

pasquinelli 6y ago

seems like a basic problem with our economic system if there're useful things that need to be done but no one is able to do it without it costing them. or, if most ip isn't useful, then why do we need to incentivize it so much?