5 ms·

"it feels like you’re grabbing something that’s already there, rather than creating something in your mind." This is why the conceit of "intellectual property"

"it feels like you’re grabbing something that’s already there, rather than creating something in your mind." This is why the conceit of "intellectual property" has always bothered me. I relate to what he describes as "finding things". Those things are are eternally "out there" for all to find. I can put up a signpost or build a road to show you the way, but how can a mere man own what is part of the infinite and eternal?

InefficientRed 4y ago
Interestingly, patent law agrees with you — mathematical theorems, for example, cannot be patented. In principle, a patent should cover specific machinery/process/material designed for a task rather than the underlying more ephemeral/indefinite concept powering the invention. The interesting thing is that, of those, machine and process seem like the least conceited. Composition of matter seems more like sticking a flag in infinite ground. But in practice it’s the former two that power most of what I consider an abuse of the spirit of patent law. But perhaps that’s just my personal bias and the bio or materials people will disagree. What can we say? Profit motive is a strong incentive and lawyers/judges are clever. Anyways, with 7B people and counting, a term limited right to one idea in the infinite space of ideas seems less harmful than perpetual rights to a piece of land.
- j-pb 4y ago
  Except that they are in the form of software patents. We live in this complexity nightmare partly because all the simple and obvious solutions are easily patented.
- onedognight 4y ago
  > seems less harmful than perpetual rights to a piece of land. Interestingly, society agrees with you; for the most part, we don’t grant perpetual rights to a piece of land. Instead we charge property tax to ensure you are doing something productive with it. You have to generate enough free cash flow to pay the taxes or you lose the land.
  - InefficientRed 4y ago
    Not really. The property taxes on a piece of land I own are about $200 per year, which can be paid in perpetuity with a low five figure endowment stored in zero risk FDIC-insured CDs. In most counties, property taxes are fairly marginal and come nowhere near necessitating that land is used productively.
gsatic 4y ago
Maybe question could be - what to do about those people who have high loss aversion, status seeking traits, mindless ambition etc baked deep into their code? How to handle these type of people when they stumble upon something useful to everyone.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  That's actually a refreshing way of looking at something. The pathologically acquisitive are naturally a small part of the population suffering insecurity, often driven by early deprivation. Our natural instinct is to share intelligence, wrt food, predators, resources. I have a theory that the misnomer "intellectual property" is most ardently championed by (perhaps older) intelligent/creative people who fear losing their power. Fear that this may be their last great idea fosters withholding and subtracts from the opportunities of the many. This comes up in other contexts. In cybersecurity, if one discovers a new exploit the natural instinct for most people is responsible disclosure, even without a bounty. However, the temptation to privatise that knowledge as a sellable "zero-day" is powerful. But what we see is that it's the mediocre who do that more. Top 0.1% hackers are so confident in their ability to find more and deadlier exploits at will, they don't hoard as it's beneath them.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > Top 0.1% hackers are so confident in their ability to find more and deadlier exploits at will, they don't hoard as it's beneath them. Or they probably see it as leverage for a job with a company at some point in the future. Or an achievement they can put on their resume or show the world. I might be wrong in assuming this, but I take it that you believe the disclosures of these top tier hackers are a result of an altruistic benevolence. If so, I think you're describing a soul rarer than the Loch Ness Monster. The best hackers do zero-day work because they love it and it pays (in cash, achievement, fame, etc.). If it doesn't pay, they'll probably find some other way of getting their kick upto and including trading exploits or data for cash. Even the hacker who saved the net from Mirai all those years ago sold exploits.
    - 4y ago
Someone 4y ago
That logic applies as well to minerals and fossils as to inventions. If I stumble upon a lump of gold, how can I own it? After all, it was merely “out there” to find. Also, the question whether math is discovered or invented is an old one, with arguments going either way. It’s not like people just stumble upon certain proofs, or that Newton was just lucky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Math..., for example, holds that math would still exist if there were no life anywhere in the universe (maybe even if there were no universe)
justsomeguy123 4y ago
But you don't "own" that. You get a temporary rent. The problem is society (and tech) moves so fast it feels like the rent is too long. The idea to incentivize public sharing of knowledge for a short term rent is not so stupid.
- nwah1 4y ago
  In economics there is a concept called "search costs." And those costs need to be compensated if you want to encourage searching. But, of course, as you said, such compensation should not be in perpetuity. A patent, in this sense, is infinitely more reasonable than a land title as currently conceived.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Henry George would agree :p
bluecalm 4y ago
It's hard to say a novel you can write or a computer program is "out there" for everyone to find though. I find this argument very compelling against patents but not against copyright in general.
keiferski 4y ago
This assumes that Platonism is the correct model of reality. In mathematics specifically, Platonism is but one of many positions and is not accepted by all philosophers or mathematicians. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
- Koshkin 4y ago
  But Platonism is not a model of anything at all. It’s just a philosophical idea which, by the way, has no impact on mathematics proper, either.
  - keiferski 4y ago
    Platonism is a metaphysical model of the universe. It’s also one of the most popular approaches to the philosophy of mathematics. This is explained in the link I posted.
    - Koshkin 4y ago
      In the link, they only talk about "models of a theory" and the "mathematical/set-theoretical universe," none of which has to do with "a metaphysical model of the universe."
      - keiferski 4y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism This is…basic philosophical knowledge about Plato’s ideas. It’s not up for debate.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
slightwinder 4y ago
Ownership is a legal right. You found/created it, so society gives you the right to rule about it's usage for a certain time. The same applies to physical objects. You own something, because society gives you the permission, not because you have the actual power to protect it with your own muscles. And there is nothing wrong with this concept; it encourages people to search and create, and prevents people from being abused by the strong and getting their findings stolen. Generally, this is beneficial for everyone and lets society moving forward and to higher levels of quality.

InefficientRed 4y ago

Interestingly, patent law agrees with you — mathematical theorems, for example, cannot be patented. In principle, a patent should cover specific machinery/process/material designed for a task rather than the underlying more ephemeral/indefinite concept powering the invention. The interesting thing is that, of those, machine and process seem like the least conceited. Composition of matter seems more like sticking a flag in infinite ground. But in practice it’s the former two that power most of what I consider an abuse of the spirit of patent law. But perhaps that’s just my personal bias and the bio or materials people will disagree. What can we say? Profit motive is a strong incentive and lawyers/judges are clever. Anyways, with 7B people and counting, a term limited right to one idea in the infinite space of ideas seems less harmful than perpetual rights to a piece of land.

j-pb 4y ago
Except that they are in the form of software patents. We live in this complexity nightmare partly because all the simple and obvious solutions are easily patented.
onedognight 4y ago
> seems less harmful than perpetual rights to a piece of land. Interestingly, society agrees with you; for the most part, we don’t grant perpetual rights to a piece of land. Instead we charge property tax to ensure you are doing something productive with it. You have to generate enough free cash flow to pay the taxes or you lose the land.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  Not really. The property taxes on a piece of land I own are about $200 per year, which can be paid in perpetuity with a low five figure endowment stored in zero risk FDIC-insured CDs. In most counties, property taxes are fairly marginal and come nowhere near necessitating that land is used productively.

gsatic 4y ago

Maybe question could be - what to do about those people who have high loss aversion, status seeking traits, mindless ambition etc baked deep into their code? How to handle these type of people when they stumble upon something useful to everyone.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
That's actually a refreshing way of looking at something. The pathologically acquisitive are naturally a small part of the population suffering insecurity, often driven by early deprivation. Our natural instinct is to share intelligence, wrt food, predators, resources. I have a theory that the misnomer "intellectual property" is most ardently championed by (perhaps older) intelligent/creative people who fear losing their power. Fear that this may be their last great idea fosters withholding and subtracts from the opportunities of the many. This comes up in other contexts. In cybersecurity, if one discovers a new exploit the natural instinct for most people is responsible disclosure, even without a bounty. However, the temptation to privatise that knowledge as a sellable "zero-day" is powerful. But what we see is that it's the mediocre who do that more. Top 0.1% hackers are so confident in their ability to find more and deadlier exploits at will, they don't hoard as it's beneath them.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Top 0.1% hackers are so confident in their ability to find more and deadlier exploits at will, they don't hoard as it's beneath them. Or they probably see it as leverage for a job with a company at some point in the future. Or an achievement they can put on their resume or show the world. I might be wrong in assuming this, but I take it that you believe the disclosures of these top tier hackers are a result of an altruistic benevolence. If so, I think you're describing a soul rarer than the Loch Ness Monster. The best hackers do zero-day work because they love it and it pays (in cash, achievement, fame, etc.). If it doesn't pay, they'll probably find some other way of getting their kick upto and including trading exploits or data for cash. Even the hacker who saved the net from Mirai all those years ago sold exploits.
  - 4y ago

Someone 4y ago

That logic applies as well to minerals and fossils as to inventions. If I stumble upon a lump of gold, how can I own it? After all, it was merely “out there” to find. Also, the question whether math is discovered or invented is an old one, with arguments going either way. It’s not like people just stumble upon certain proofs, or that Newton was just lucky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Math..., for example, holds that math would still exist if there were no life anywhere in the universe (maybe even if there were no universe)

justsomeguy123 4y ago

But you don't "own" that. You get a temporary rent. The problem is society (and tech) moves so fast it feels like the rent is too long. The idea to incentivize public sharing of knowledge for a short term rent is not so stupid.

nwah1 4y ago
In economics there is a concept called "search costs." And those costs need to be compensated if you want to encourage searching. But, of course, as you said, such compensation should not be in perpetuity. A patent, in this sense, is infinitely more reasonable than a land title as currently conceived.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Henry George would agree :p

bluecalm 4y ago

It's hard to say a novel you can write or a computer program is "out there" for everyone to find though. I find this argument very compelling against patents but not against copyright in general.

keiferski 4y ago

This assumes that Platonism is the correct model of reality. In mathematics specifically, Platonism is but one of many positions and is not accepted by all philosophers or mathematicians. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Koshkin 4y ago
But Platonism is not a model of anything at all. It’s just a philosophical idea which, by the way, has no impact on mathematics proper, either.
- keiferski 4y ago
  Platonism is a metaphysical model of the universe. It’s also one of the most popular approaches to the philosophy of mathematics. This is explained in the link I posted.
  - Koshkin 4y ago
    In the link, they only talk about "models of a theory" and the "mathematical/set-theoretical universe," none of which has to do with "a metaphysical model of the universe."
    - keiferski 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism This is…basic philosophical knowledge about Plato’s ideas. It’s not up for debate.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

slightwinder 4y ago

Ownership is a legal right. You found/created it, so society gives you the right to rule about it's usage for a certain time. The same applies to physical objects. You own something, because society gives you the permission, not because you have the actual power to protect it with your own muscles. And there is nothing wrong with this concept; it encourages people to search and create, and prevents people from being abused by the strong and getting their findings stolen. Generally, this is beneficial for everyone and lets society moving forward and to higher levels of quality.