7 ms·

IP-intensive industries contribute 41% of the US GDP and employ 44% of the US workforce [1]. If you abolished IP all of that would go away. How would you replac

IP-intensive industries contribute 41% of the US GDP and employ 44% of the US workforce [1]. If you abolished IP all of that would go away. How would you replace that? I'm not a fan of IP either but I think it's pretty hard to escape that reality. Big companies like NVIDIA (3T market cap) are almost 100% IP. IP is more-or-less central to the US's economic and security strategy. Without it, the country loses a huge amount of power and influence in the world. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/economic-research/intellectual-property-and-us-economy https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/economic-research/intellectu...

Super_Jambo 2y ago
Pay them from general taxation to dig holes and fill them in again with spoons? If you can only succeed because you're government is holding back others at the barrel of a gun do you really deserve to?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Business in physical property/goods also requires the government to hold others back with a barrel of a gun.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    One of the key differences being that physical theft deprives the rightful owner of the property. It's not an analogous crime.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government. Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law). People can and do make arguments against both IP and physical property, but the role of government the the same in both cases.
      - hug 2y ago
        Unlike physical property, "intellectual property" doesn't exist by itself. The thing that exists, the product that it is that you ostensibly "own" that is protected by the government is the copyright, a soft of reified extension of ownership, which only has any value inasmuch as the government protects it. In other words, intellectual property is only worth what the government says it is. It doesn't just hold the gun, in this case, it contrived the whole scenario in which a gun was necessary, and the presence of the gun is the only thing that prevents the "intellectual property" from spreading naturally, as information is wont to do. You can argue whether the creation of this market is for the greater good, but the fact is that it's not in any way the same kind of market as evolves around physical goods, and is not regulated or enforced in the same kind of way.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I don't think it is any different for physical property. What is a pound of gold worth when you are defenseless and someone else has armed men willing to kill you. Might makes right and owns all property is the default. Every situation that deviates from this is imposed by governments. A market around physical goods is no different.
        laserlight 2y ago
        Why did you choose gold as an example? How about a sword? Claiming that physical and intellectual property are the same is reductionistic at best. The fact that both properties are protected by power doesn't mean that they are the same. Physical property is not copyable. Intellectual property is.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above. I am saying their relation to the government is the same. Government maintains both, and creates a market for them by doing so. No government> no private property> no goods for sale. I dont see how copyable is relevant at all.
- freejazz 2y ago
  I hope you don't mind when I come and take your computer.
MrVandemar 2y ago
> IP-intensive industries contribute 41% of the US GDP and employ 44% of the US workforce [1]. If you abolished IP all of that would go away. That's right. Change the rules and 44% of people would instantly — instantly — lose their jobs. The US Economy would tank like a torpedoed ship overnight! Gone in a flash! Or ... maybe what you wrote was a little overhyped, and perhaps when the rules changed the Market, as they say, would decide.
kragen 2y ago
this specious argument relies on conflating 'intellectual property' in the sense of 'useful knowledge and designs' with 'intellectual property' in the sense of 'legal restrictions on using knowledge and designs'. to avoid getting caught up in these word games, let's use different terms for these two concepts; for this comment, i'll use the terms 'knowledge' and 'intellectual enclosure' when someone says 'ip is doing more harm than good' what they mean is 'intellectual enclosure is doing more harm than good'. when someone says 'ip-intensive industries contribute (...)% of the (...) gdp' what they mean is 'knowledge-intensive industries contribute (...)% of the (...) gdp' specifically the thing that intellectual enclosure is doing harm to is those knowledge-intensive industries, who are obliged to spend large fractions of their revenues on unproductive lawsuits instead of creating and sharing knowledge. in numerous cases it has destroyed major parts of those industries; two memorable examples are digital, which created the minicomputer and much of the internet, and diamond, which created the mp3 player but the greatest casualties are not the productive activities that are terminated by intellectual enclosure, but the productive activities that are never born. do you know why linux didn't get a crashproof filesystem with snapshots 25 years ago? it's because of netapp patents. all the damage done by accidental file deletion and crashes on linux in that time could have been avoided. do you know why today there's still no simple way for regular people to send a ten-gigabyte file across the internet? mgm vs. grokster. and for every well-known catastrophe like this, there are ten thousand that never grow big enough for us to even guess what might have been unsurprisingly the businesses that are most profitable in the current market are using strategies that fit well with the current regulatory regime. but that does not constitute argument that the current regulatory regime is good in any way, except perhaps by the minimal criterion of not completely cratering the entire economy yet my intellect is not your property
- chongli 2y ago
  How does a company like NVIDIA operate without IP law? They are fabless. Everything they produce is digital, either in the form of software or in the form of chip designs. As far as I can tell, without protection from IP law (patents, copyrights, trade secrets) NVIDIA could not function as a company. They would have no means whatsoever at preventing a fab like TSMC from manufacturing clones of their devices and selling them, cutting NVIDIA out of the loop.
freehorse 2y ago
> IP is more-or-less central to the US's economic and security strategy. Without it, the country loses a huge amount of power and influence in the world. Good?
- computerfriend 2y ago
  One loss is another's gain.
  - richie_adler 2y ago
    The numerous countries submerged in misery due to US intervention certainly would welcome a lessening of its power.
    - computerfriend 2y ago
      I don't know about "submerged in misery" but yes, of course countries that perceive themselves oppressed by the US would welcome its decline, obviously.
userbinator 2y ago
How would you replace that? Do what the other 59% and 56% are doing?
laserlight 2y ago
> If you abolished IP all of that would go away. Do you have any evidence for that? It astonishes me that humanity has progressed for thousands of years without any IP protection, but for some unclear reason it wouldn't today.
matheusmoreira 2y ago
> IP is more-or-less central to the US's economic and security strategy. Without it, the country loses a huge amount of power and influence in the world. Yes, please. I mean, have you read the USTR's glorified naughty list of countries and their utter contempt for the business models of american corporations? "Our stakeholders" this, "our stakeholders" that. These corporations literally leverage the military might of the USA to extract profit worldwide. There are countries out there where people do not have basic sanitation, the last thing they care about is policing the imaginary property of americans. But Wall Street won't have it so.
account42 2y ago
> all of that would go away [citation needed]

Super_Jambo 2y ago

Pay them from general taxation to dig holes and fill them in again with spoons? If you can only succeed because you're government is holding back others at the barrel of a gun do you really deserve to?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Business in physical property/goods also requires the government to hold others back with a barrel of a gun.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  One of the key differences being that physical theft deprives the rightful owner of the property. It's not an analogous crime.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Of course I agree that there are some differences, but they are the same with respect to the sated role of government. Physical theft deprives the owner of physical property (where this right is respected by law. IP theft deprives the owner of intellectual property ( where this right is respected by law). People can and do make arguments against both IP and physical property, but the role of government the the same in both cases.
    - hug 2y ago
      Unlike physical property, "intellectual property" doesn't exist by itself. The thing that exists, the product that it is that you ostensibly "own" that is protected by the government is the copyright, a soft of reified extension of ownership, which only has any value inasmuch as the government protects it. In other words, intellectual property is only worth what the government says it is. It doesn't just hold the gun, in this case, it contrived the whole scenario in which a gun was necessary, and the presence of the gun is the only thing that prevents the "intellectual property" from spreading naturally, as information is wont to do. You can argue whether the creation of this market is for the greater good, but the fact is that it's not in any way the same kind of market as evolves around physical goods, and is not regulated or enforced in the same kind of way.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I don't think it is any different for physical property. What is a pound of gold worth when you are defenseless and someone else has armed men willing to kill you. Might makes right and owns all property is the default. Every situation that deviates from this is imposed by governments. A market around physical goods is no different.
        laserlight 2y ago
        Why did you choose gold as an example? How about a sword? Claiming that physical and intellectual property are the same is reductionistic at best. The fact that both properties are protected by power doesn't mean that they are the same. Physical property is not copyable. Intellectual property is.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Im not saying they are the same, and stated as much above. I am saying their relation to the government is the same. Government maintains both, and creates a market for them by doing so. No government> no private property> no goods for sale. I dont see how copyable is relevant at all.
freejazz 2y ago
I hope you don't mind when I come and take your computer.

MrVandemar 2y ago

> IP-intensive industries contribute 41% of the US GDP and employ 44% of the US workforce [1]. If you abolished IP all of that would go away. That's right. Change the rules and 44% of people would instantly — instantly — lose their jobs. The US Economy would tank like a torpedoed ship overnight! Gone in a flash! Or ... maybe what you wrote was a little overhyped, and perhaps when the rules changed the Market, as they say, would decide.

kragen 2y ago

this specious argument relies on conflating 'intellectual property' in the sense of 'useful knowledge and designs' with 'intellectual property' in the sense of 'legal restrictions on using knowledge and designs'. to avoid getting caught up in these word games, let's use different terms for these two concepts; for this comment, i'll use the terms 'knowledge' and 'intellectual enclosure' when someone says 'ip is doing more harm than good' what they mean is 'intellectual enclosure is doing more harm than good'. when someone says 'ip-intensive industries contribute (...)% of the (...) gdp' what they mean is 'knowledge-intensive industries contribute (...)% of the (...) gdp' specifically the thing that intellectual enclosure is doing harm to is those knowledge-intensive industries, who are obliged to spend large fractions of their revenues on unproductive lawsuits instead of creating and sharing knowledge. in numerous cases it has destroyed major parts of those industries; two memorable examples are digital, which created the minicomputer and much of the internet, and diamond, which created the mp3 player but the greatest casualties are not the productive activities that are terminated by intellectual enclosure, but the productive activities that are never born. do you know why linux didn't get a crashproof filesystem with snapshots 25 years ago? it's because of netapp patents. all the damage done by accidental file deletion and crashes on linux in that time could have been avoided. do you know why today there's still no simple way for regular people to send a ten-gigabyte file across the internet? mgm vs. grokster. and for every well-known catastrophe like this, there are ten thousand that never grow big enough for us to even guess what might have been unsurprisingly the businesses that are most profitable in the current market are using strategies that fit well with the current regulatory regime. but that does not constitute argument that the current regulatory regime is good in any way, except perhaps by the minimal criterion of not completely cratering the entire economy yet my intellect is not your property

chongli 2y ago
How does a company like NVIDIA operate without IP law? They are fabless. Everything they produce is digital, either in the form of software or in the form of chip designs. As far as I can tell, without protection from IP law (patents, copyrights, trade secrets) NVIDIA could not function as a company. They would have no means whatsoever at preventing a fab like TSMC from manufacturing clones of their devices and selling them, cutting NVIDIA out of the loop.

freehorse 2y ago

> IP is more-or-less central to the US's economic and security strategy. Without it, the country loses a huge amount of power and influence in the world. Good?

computerfriend 2y ago
One loss is another's gain.
- richie_adler 2y ago
  The numerous countries submerged in misery due to US intervention certainly would welcome a lessening of its power.
  - computerfriend 2y ago
    I don't know about "submerged in misery" but yes, of course countries that perceive themselves oppressed by the US would welcome its decline, obviously.

userbinator 2y ago

How would you replace that? Do what the other 59% and 56% are doing?

laserlight 2y ago

> If you abolished IP all of that would go away. Do you have any evidence for that? It astonishes me that humanity has progressed for thousands of years without any IP protection, but for some unclear reason it wouldn't today.

matheusmoreira 2y ago

> IP is more-or-less central to the US's economic and security strategy. Without it, the country loses a huge amount of power and influence in the world. Yes, please. I mean, have you read the USTR's glorified naughty list of countries and their utter contempt for the business models of american corporations? "Our stakeholders" this, "our stakeholders" that. These corporations literally leverage the military might of the USA to extract profit worldwide. There are countries out there where people do not have basic sanitation, the last thing they care about is policing the imaginary property of americans. But Wall Street won't have it so.

account42 2y ago

> all of that would go away [citation needed]