3 ms·

That's true in some respects, but I think most will agree that pretending it's a little like real property has it's benefits. For example, think about ARM Holdi

That's true in some respects, but I think most will agree that pretending it's a little like real property has it's benefits. For example, think about ARM Holdings. From Wiki: >Unlike most traditional microprocessor suppliers, such as: Intel, Freescale (the former semiconductor division of Motorola) and Renesas (a former joint venture between Hitachi and Mitsubishi Electric),[40] ARM only creates and licenses its technology as intellectual property (IP), rather than manufacturing and sellIng its own physical CPUs, GPUs, SoCs or microcontrollers. This model is similar to fellow British design houses: ARC International, and Imagination Technologies who have similarly been designing and licensing GPUs, CPUs, and SoCs, along with supplying tooling and various design and support services to their licensees. All they produce, according to you, is imaginary property. But can you deny the importance of their role? How many ARM devices are in use around the world?

habitue 12y ago
The argument isn't that it isn't a valuable process, the argument is that it's a process that produces something that is wholly unlike physical property. Information like the kind ARM produces[0] is more valuable to society as a whole the more widely it is disseminated. So an artificial monopoly pretending like information is a scarce resource is probably not the best way to compensate them for doing that kind of work. [0] Some information, like intelligence information, is more valuable the less people have it, which is a major distinguishing feature here.
- wfjackson 12y ago
  >Information like the kind ARM produces[0] is more valuable to society as a whole the more widely it is disseminated. So an artificial monopoly pretending like information is a scarce resource is probably not the best way to compensate them for doing that kind of work. Doing that without properly compensating ARM is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg. ARM is already trying to make a $20 smartphone. There is already a $25 FF OS smartphone. http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/06/20-dollar-smartphone/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/06/20-dollar-smartphone/ How much does ARM make from such a phone after all the physical costs are taken out? a few cents?
  - habitue 12y ago
    As someone who once invested in ARM, and has looked at their balance sheets in depth: yes, it's a cent or two per phone. Your unexamined assumption here is that copyright monopolies are the only way to compensate people for work like this. That's not the case.
    - msbarnett 12y ago
      Genuinely curious: what do you think would be some other practical, achievable ways of ensuring that the people at a company like ARM get compensated for their work without "putting the force of the state behind their 'thought-property'"?
      - habitue 12y ago
        We actually have a bunch of examples since there are many industries which don't have the ability to obtain copyright monopolies or patents (or either). Here's a good list (I hope you'll excuse the libertarian source): http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property People are making money today doing creating intellectual products without the benefit of copyrights and patents, and they're some of the highest margin industries out there.
- IBM 12y ago
  I don't understand your comment. How else would you compensate them when their business model is designing the processors to be licensed to others and not building it?
  - habitue 12y ago
    Is the point to compensate them with their current business model so they don't have to make any changes as a company? If so, then yes, you've defined the solution into a corner here and copyright monopoly is the only way to go. If, however, we look at the actual thing society has an interest in promoting: to get people to do the hard work of original research and engineering optimization, then we find there are lots of ways to solve that problem without granting monopolies or treating information like physical property.
    - wfjackson 12y ago
      >Is the point to compensate them with their current business model so they don't have to make any changes as a company Doesn't ARM keep coming up with new and innovative designs? Don't they have companies like Intel nipping at their heels waiting for a misstep? Isn't ARM on server an uphill battle for them they are working on? Why do we need to shake up their business model? To what end exactly? To make smartphones a few cents cheaper than they already are? >If, however, we look at the actual thing society has an interest in promoting: to get people to do the hard work of original research and engineering optimization, then we find there are lots of ways to solve that problem without granting monopolies or treating information like physical property. Go on... what are some of the "lots of ways" ? I am genuinely curious.
      - habitue 12y ago
        Please see my comment to a similar question above. I was apparently asking for it by not giving examples.
icebraining 12y ago
All they produce, according to you, is imaginary property. No, what they produce are useful designs of chips; whether they are - or should be considered - property is a different matter. After all, inventions don't become useless or unimportant the moment their patent expires.
- IBM 12y ago
  They're considered property in the eyes of the law via patents because this isn't some philosophical question and that's how their product and business is protected in practice.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    They're considered property in the eyes of your particular jurisdiction. They might not be in another - even if probably not for long, since chances are the US will bully them into compliance, as we've been seeing with TPP.
zanny 12y ago
ARM would not need to exist if IP didn't exist to restrict the usage of both ASMs and designs of every other semiconductor manufacturer. People would not just stop innovating in the architecture space because they can't profit from it - fab manufacturers who make chips using the architecture can, and do. What you would see is a transition away from everyone reinventing the wheel (how many add instructions do we need?) more towards an open common base set of instructions with extensions per use. And if that standard ever grew obsolete, the technical benefits of any other implementation could be immediately utilized industry wide without the tyrannical abuse of power that is copyrights on the vocabulary and patents on the chip designs.
- IBM 12y ago
  >People would not just stop innovating in the architecture space because they can't profit from it - fab manufacturers who make chips using the architecture can, and do. Is this real life? I honestly can't believe people actually believe this.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    If you couldn't profit from the IP of a faster computer, you could still profit from having a faster computer. Of course, this might mean that people are less likely to disclose information, which is the main economic benefit of the patent system. I'm not completely against patents, I just think they have grown into something that is now more than slightly ludicrous and needs a serious trim before it becomes un-rescuable.

habitue 12y ago

The argument isn't that it isn't a valuable process, the argument is that it's a process that produces something that is wholly unlike physical property. Information like the kind ARM produces[0] is more valuable to society as a whole the more widely it is disseminated. So an artificial monopoly pretending like information is a scarce resource is probably not the best way to compensate them for doing that kind of work. [0] Some information, like intelligence information, is more valuable the less people have it, which is a major distinguishing feature here.

wfjackson 12y ago
>Information like the kind ARM produces[0] is more valuable to society as a whole the more widely it is disseminated. So an artificial monopoly pretending like information is a scarce resource is probably not the best way to compensate them for doing that kind of work. Doing that without properly compensating ARM is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg. ARM is already trying to make a $20 smartphone. There is already a $25 FF OS smartphone. http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/06/20-dollar-smartphone/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/06/20-dollar-smartphone/ How much does ARM make from such a phone after all the physical costs are taken out? a few cents?
- habitue 12y ago
  As someone who once invested in ARM, and has looked at their balance sheets in depth: yes, it's a cent or two per phone. Your unexamined assumption here is that copyright monopolies are the only way to compensate people for work like this. That's not the case.
  - msbarnett 12y ago
    Genuinely curious: what do you think would be some other practical, achievable ways of ensuring that the people at a company like ARM get compensated for their work without "putting the force of the state behind their 'thought-property'"?
    - habitue 12y ago
      We actually have a bunch of examples since there are many industries which don't have the ability to obtain copyright monopolies or patents (or either). Here's a good list (I hope you'll excuse the libertarian source): http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property People are making money today doing creating intellectual products without the benefit of copyrights and patents, and they're some of the highest margin industries out there.
IBM 12y ago
I don't understand your comment. How else would you compensate them when their business model is designing the processors to be licensed to others and not building it?
- habitue 12y ago
  Is the point to compensate them with their current business model so they don't have to make any changes as a company? If so, then yes, you've defined the solution into a corner here and copyright monopoly is the only way to go. If, however, we look at the actual thing society has an interest in promoting: to get people to do the hard work of original research and engineering optimization, then we find there are lots of ways to solve that problem without granting monopolies or treating information like physical property.
  - wfjackson 12y ago
    >Is the point to compensate them with their current business model so they don't have to make any changes as a company Doesn't ARM keep coming up with new and innovative designs? Don't they have companies like Intel nipping at their heels waiting for a misstep? Isn't ARM on server an uphill battle for them they are working on? Why do we need to shake up their business model? To what end exactly? To make smartphones a few cents cheaper than they already are? >If, however, we look at the actual thing society has an interest in promoting: to get people to do the hard work of original research and engineering optimization, then we find there are lots of ways to solve that problem without granting monopolies or treating information like physical property. Go on... what are some of the "lots of ways" ? I am genuinely curious.
    - habitue 12y ago
      Please see my comment to a similar question above. I was apparently asking for it by not giving examples.

icebraining 12y ago

All they produce, according to you, is imaginary property. No, what they produce are useful designs of chips; whether they are - or should be considered - property is a different matter. After all, inventions don't become useless or unimportant the moment their patent expires.

IBM 12y ago
They're considered property in the eyes of the law via patents because this isn't some philosophical question and that's how their product and business is protected in practice.
- icebraining 12y ago
  They're considered property in the eyes of your particular jurisdiction. They might not be in another - even if probably not for long, since chances are the US will bully them into compliance, as we've been seeing with TPP.

zanny 12y ago

ARM would not need to exist if IP didn't exist to restrict the usage of both ASMs and designs of every other semiconductor manufacturer. People would not just stop innovating in the architecture space because they can't profit from it - fab manufacturers who make chips using the architecture can, and do. What you would see is a transition away from everyone reinventing the wheel (how many add instructions do we need?) more towards an open common base set of instructions with extensions per use. And if that standard ever grew obsolete, the technical benefits of any other implementation could be immediately utilized industry wide without the tyrannical abuse of power that is copyrights on the vocabulary and patents on the chip designs.

IBM 12y ago
>People would not just stop innovating in the architecture space because they can't profit from it - fab manufacturers who make chips using the architecture can, and do. Is this real life? I honestly can't believe people actually believe this.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  If you couldn't profit from the IP of a faster computer, you could still profit from having a faster computer. Of course, this might mean that people are less likely to disclose information, which is the main economic benefit of the patent system. I'm not completely against patents, I just think they have grown into something that is now more than slightly ludicrous and needs a serious trim before it becomes un-rescuable.