4 ms·

> Anyone can create IP. It's not something only the wealthy can do. No. First you need privileged access to humanity’s techno-scientific inheritance. New disco

> Anyone can create IP. It's not something only the wealthy can do. No. First you need privileged access to humanity’s techno-scientific inheritance. New discoveries and their negative research are increasingly being monopolized through trade secret protection (which, unlike patents, means that some discoveries can be forever monopolized). https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur... Yes I agree this isn’t the best source so if you have a good source that explains it better, please share?

bencollier49 5y ago
If I independently discover a trade secret, it stops being a trade secret. And are you telling us we need privilege to write a song?
- krageon 5y ago
  You need privilege to have a song listened to.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    Not with the internet. It's as simple as sharing a link.
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  There are many instances where a small artist sampling commercial music has been slapped with a life-ending lawsuit, while commercial artists straight up ripping off small artists make chart hits and millions of dollars.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    That sounds like easy money for the small artist if they sued.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > And are you telling us we need privilege to write a song? I wrote: “you need privileged access to humanity’s techno-scientific inheritance.” So no, that’s not what I'm telling you. For cultural media/products it’s different. If the working class need for affordable housing was respected, and we didn’t have parasitic Wall Street housing-financializers like Blackstone sucking out our life energy, then songwriters wouldn’t need to extract endless royalties from cultural products like songs to pay for their housing rents. Instead they could live off live performances or use some sort of societal reputational framework to measure their joy-bringing cultural contribution (e.g. by using the number of plays or similar metrics). Rent extraction and monopolization of our techno-scientific has a grossly underexplored compounding cancer-like effect on the social organism. Today's property relations (the state letting individuals 'own' bits of science) are literally pushing us towards climate genocide. I care about growing radical universal access to our techno-scientific inheritance because we live in an age where scientific discoveries, which are all individually part of a larger web of interconnected collective feedback loops revealed when painstakingly reverse engineering various phenomena on our planet, are increasingly being commoditized, with little public awareness of the destructiveness and insidiousness of that shift. > “…today, a tiny minority of people and corporate interests across the world are accumulating vast wealth and power from rental income, not only from housing and land but from a range of other assets, natural and created. ‘Rentiers’ of all kinds are in unparalleled ascendancy > Rentiers derive income from ownership, possession or control of assets that are scarce or artificially made scarce. Most familiar is rental income from land, property, mineral exploitation or financial investments, but other sources have grown too. They include the income lenders gain from debt interest; income from ownership of ‘intellectual property’ (such as [trade secrets], patents, copyright, brands and trademarks); capital gains on investments; ‘above normal’ company profits (when a firm has a dominant market position that allows it to charge high prices or dictate terms); income from government subsidies; and income of financial and other intermediaries derived from third-party transactions.“ > Rather than a “free market,” the neoliberal global economy praised as “free trade” is actually “a global framework of institutions and regulations that enable elites to maximise their rental income.” https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corruption-capitalism-guy-standing/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...
charcircuit 5y ago
>No. The comment you just made is IP that you now own. You just created IP. You own the copyright on anything you write.
- froh 5y ago
  How does this fit in the context of monetizable, economically valuable IP and the protection of individual intellectual freedom and personal benefit (or lack thereof) for the individual contributor who actually invented it? Also, technically, as an employee anything you create which even remotely fits into the realm of the employer and the company is transferred to them the moment you create it.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    It fits in the context that you can sell a program that you've developed, but other people can't just go and sell it. I don't know why you are focused on inventions when the article's IP was about scholarly articles.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    If IP is easy then protection doesn't matter. If IP is hard then protection is important.
    - regularfry 5y ago
      It's both. IP in general is easy. IP in specific is anywhere between devilishly hard and trivial, and by its very nature it's monopolistic. You can't "just create your own" if the territory you want to build on is already occupied. By treating all IP as though it's close to impossible, and that we must societally worship the creators and their progeny, we create monumental inefficiencies.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        > we must societally worship the creators and their progeny, It's really hard to have a useful conversation when nonsense like this creeps in. There's no society that behaves as a group. Talk mechanisms, not anthropomorphised outcomes.

bencollier49 5y ago

If I independently discover a trade secret, it stops being a trade secret. And are you telling us we need privilege to write a song?

krageon 5y ago
You need privilege to have a song listened to.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  Not with the internet. It's as simple as sharing a link.
eurasiantiger 5y ago
There are many instances where a small artist sampling commercial music has been slapped with a life-ending lawsuit, while commercial artists straight up ripping off small artists make chart hits and millions of dollars.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  That sounds like easy money for the small artist if they sued.
beckman466 5y ago
> And are you telling us we need privilege to write a song? I wrote: “you need privileged access to humanity’s techno-scientific inheritance.” So no, that’s not what I'm telling you. For cultural media/products it’s different. If the working class need for affordable housing was respected, and we didn’t have parasitic Wall Street housing-financializers like Blackstone sucking out our life energy, then songwriters wouldn’t need to extract endless royalties from cultural products like songs to pay for their housing rents. Instead they could live off live performances or use some sort of societal reputational framework to measure their joy-bringing cultural contribution (e.g. by using the number of plays or similar metrics). Rent extraction and monopolization of our techno-scientific has a grossly underexplored compounding cancer-like effect on the social organism. Today's property relations (the state letting individuals 'own' bits of science) are literally pushing us towards climate genocide. I care about growing radical universal access to our techno-scientific inheritance because we live in an age where scientific discoveries, which are all individually part of a larger web of interconnected collective feedback loops revealed when painstakingly reverse engineering various phenomena on our planet, are increasingly being commoditized, with little public awareness of the destructiveness and insidiousness of that shift. > “…today, a tiny minority of people and corporate interests across the world are accumulating vast wealth and power from rental income, not only from housing and land but from a range of other assets, natural and created. ‘Rentiers’ of all kinds are in unparalleled ascendancy > Rentiers derive income from ownership, possession or control of assets that are scarce or artificially made scarce. Most familiar is rental income from land, property, mineral exploitation or financial investments, but other sources have grown too. They include the income lenders gain from debt interest; income from ownership of ‘intellectual property’ (such as [trade secrets], patents, copyright, brands and trademarks); capital gains on investments; ‘above normal’ company profits (when a firm has a dominant market position that allows it to charge high prices or dictate terms); income from government subsidies; and income of financial and other intermediaries derived from third-party transactions.“ > Rather than a “free market,” the neoliberal global economy praised as “free trade” is actually “a global framework of institutions and regulations that enable elites to maximise their rental income.” https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corruption-capitalism-guy-standing/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...

charcircuit 5y ago

>No. The comment you just made is IP that you now own. You just created IP. You own the copyright on anything you write.

froh 5y ago
How does this fit in the context of monetizable, economically valuable IP and the protection of individual intellectual freedom and personal benefit (or lack thereof) for the individual contributor who actually invented it? Also, technically, as an employee anything you create which even remotely fits into the realm of the employer and the company is transferred to them the moment you create it.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  It fits in the context that you can sell a program that you've developed, but other people can't just go and sell it. I don't know why you are focused on inventions when the article's IP was about scholarly articles.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  If IP is easy then protection doesn't matter. If IP is hard then protection is important.
  - regularfry 5y ago
    It's both. IP in general is easy. IP in specific is anywhere between devilishly hard and trivial, and by its very nature it's monopolistic. You can't "just create your own" if the territory you want to build on is already occupied. By treating all IP as though it's close to impossible, and that we must societally worship the creators and their progeny, we create monumental inefficiencies.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      > we must societally worship the creators and their progeny, It's really hard to have a useful conversation when nonsense like this creeps in. There's no society that behaves as a group. Talk mechanisms, not anthropomorphised outcomes.