3 ms·

"If I was to nick your car, which is worth £10,000, say, I could go to jail," Baylis told the BBC. "But if I were to nick your patent, which is worth a million

by reedlaw 17y ago

"If I was to nick your car, which is worth £10,000, say, I could go to jail," Baylis told the BBC. "But if I were to nick your patent, which is worth a million pounds, you'd have to sue me." This is nonsense. A patent is just an idea, and as such, isn't worth anything. Someone has to develop and market an idea before it's worth one dime. The protection of "intellectual property rights" leads to violation of simple property rights which say I can do anything I want with whatever I own. See today's previous article: http://gcn1.posterous.com/i-bought-a-cd-not-a-licensing-agreement http://gcn1.posterous.com/i-bought-a-cd-not-a-licensing-agre...

travisp 17y ago
For an alternate view, see this paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 The paper argues that patents recognizing the inventions of vulcanized rubber, sewing machines, and incandescent lightbulbs, for example, were all valuable ideas. Violating these patents would have destroyed the ability of the inventor to profit from the years of work necessary to invent them. The paper further argues that IP rights are a part of basic property rights, perhaps even more essentially so than physical property. Property rights, at least classically, don't say that you can do anything you want with whatever you own. For example, you cannot shoot a random person with a gun and bullet you own because it would violate their rights. The protection of the other person's right to their life is not leading to a violation of your simple property rights. Similarly, this is the reason that traditional analysis of the protection of intellectual property did not view it as a violation of anyone's property rights.
gaius 17y ago
A patent is just an idea, and as such, isn't worth anything. That is factually incorrect. A patent is a detailed description of the implementation of an idea.

by reedlaw 17y ago

travisp 17y ago

For an alternate view, see this paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457848 The paper argues that patents recognizing the inventions of vulcanized rubber, sewing machines, and incandescent lightbulbs, for example, were all valuable ideas. Violating these patents would have destroyed the ability of the inventor to profit from the years of work necessary to invent them. The paper further argues that IP rights are a part of basic property rights, perhaps even more essentially so than physical property. Property rights, at least classically, don't say that you can do anything you want with whatever you own. For example, you cannot shoot a random person with a gun and bullet you own because it would violate their rights. The protection of the other person's right to their life is not leading to a violation of your simple property rights. Similarly, this is the reason that traditional analysis of the protection of intellectual property did not view it as a violation of anyone's property rights.

gaius 17y ago

A patent is just an idea, and as such, isn't worth anything. That is factually incorrect. A patent is a detailed description of the implementation of an idea.