Discussion of the legitimacy of Intellectual Property

[smoking357]

Please define your use of the word "Libertarian". Your choice to capitalize the word implies you are referring to the "Libertarian Party" and official positions held by the same. I, however, have been unable to find any plank in the LP's platform referring to "IP", "Intellectual Property", or "Copyright".

That being the case, your use of the term must be different than usual indications would imply. Since your authoritative understanding of "the Libertarian argument" must have some basis, I would be curious to know what that basis is and what your operating definition of "Libertarian" is, sir.

Too collateral. Take it to PM.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Most IP isn't really developing a property interest in an idea, but establishing a property interest in the application or use of the idea.

Exclusion from the idea is only possible if the idea is kept secret, and thus, the area of trade secrets is really the only area where exclusion from ideas takes place. Almost all other forms of IP are directed toward the open sharing of ideas and the limited protection of their application.

Using a patent on the ultra-efficient fuel injector as an example. The idea underlying the patent is freely given to the public. The specific embodiment of structure which uses the idea is protected by the patent. The public is free to use the idea to create improved fuel injectors or other research.

Right there. That's the germ of the discussion.

How does one have a property interest in an idea.

How does one rightfully exclude another from an idea?

 

[jsgolfman]

Right there. That's the germ of the discussion.

How does one have a property interest in an idea?

How does one rightfully exclude another from an idea?

Well, that was my point in declaring my opposition to IP, you can't. So, then the argument ensues "What about implementation of the idea?" Doesn't that change the landscape, once the intellectual property becomes tangible property? My response is the same, no.

Another question, proviso or non-proviso?

 

[smoking357]

Using a patent on the ultra-efficient fuel injector as an example. The idea underlying the patent is freely given to the public. The specific embodiment of structure which uses the idea is protected by the patent. The public is free to use the idea to create improved fuel injectors or other research.

It is only given to the public in exchange for a 20 year monopoly on the economic product of the idea.

By what right can any man tell another man that he cannot have or use a thought?

 

[Lex Concord]

Too collateral. Take it to PM.

Actually, I think it's central to your assertions regarding "Libertarian thought", and would benefit everyone's understanding if rendered publicly, with the rest of your wisdom.

 

[smoking357]

Well, that was my point in declaring my opposition to IP, you can't.

Why not?

 

[smoking357]

Actually, I think it's central to your assertions regarding "Libertarian thought", and would benefit everyone's understanding if rendered publicly, with the rest of your wisdom.

Oh, for God's sake, go to LRC and search under "intellectual property." You'll get an anthology on the subject.

When you've exhausted that, head over to Freesteader for more ideas and sources.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

If the your valuable knowledge is lost because communication was ineffective, nobody benefits. What may be helpful would be understand the purpose of your communication here. You may deny that presentation influences arguments, but it is the reality.

I think you ask a lot for over 7,000 of your fellow hoosiers and gun owners to readjust their accustomed form of communication to suit you. Clarity should never be sacrificed because one prefers to be concise. I believe that is selfish and lazy.

No. "Communication" is not "discussion," and it's a non sequitur to allow "presentation" to influence an argument.

I'm content when I can be more laconic than Wittgenstein.

 

[Lex Concord]

.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

This appears to be crux of the discussion. One persuasive viewpoint to me is that property is the natural result of one's effort and energy expended toward making the property useful. A Lockean viewpoint. The result of expending time and effort to create an idea and then implement that idea should result in some property right in the implementation of that idea.

Using patents as an example, I've though that some limited rights should exist for the independent inventor.

By what right can any man tell another man that he cannot have or use a thought?

 

[jsgolfman]

Why not?

The only way to do so is by patent law, which utilizes the force of the state to guarantee the monopoly. From a purely libertarian standpoint, that initiation of force cannot be justified. Not to mention the fact that idea can be produced, or reproduced, by anyone multiple times.

 

[jsgolfman]

This appears to be crux of the discussion. One persuasive viewpoint to me is that property is the natural result of one's effort and energy expended toward making the property useful. A Lockean viewpoint. The result of expending time and effort to create an idea and then implement that idea should result in some property right in the implementation of that idea.

Using patents as an example, I've though that some limited rights should exist for the independent inventor.

By what methods do you define those rights?

 

[hoosiertriangle]

A point of clarification first, when you "those rights," do you mean general property right of IP, or the independent inventor's rights mentioned in my last phrase.

By what methods do you define those rights?

 

[jsgolfman]

My apologies, I should have clarified. What I mean is how do you determine those patent rights? How do you decide how long? What is protected?

 

[smoking357]

The only way to do so is by patent law, which utilizes the force of the state to guarantee the monopoly. From a purely libertarian standpoint, that initiation of force cannot be justified. Not to mention the fact that idea can be produced, or reproduced, by anyone multiple times.

The use of state force to protect property is justified in Libertarian thinking.

 

[jsgolfman]

Tangible property, I would agree.

 

[kabrown]

In my opinion, IP law cannot be reconciled with a libertarian perspective. I would argue, in fact, that IP law is based on inherently socialist principles.

Let's examine the source of our IP laws, the US Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

It is clear from The Constitution that the overarching purpose of IP law is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to protect an individuals right to his intellectual works. An individual's rights are secondary to the promotion of knowledge; the reason those rights are granted are to promote the arts. Society will benefit by the promotion of knowledge, so the government gives incentives and protection to inventors for a limited time in order to promote our collective knowledge in the long run.

Seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the founding fathers in this case was to benefit our society, not necessarily the individual. That's why I interpret IP law as socialist.

 

[Fletch]

The use of state force to protect property is justified in Libertarian thinking.

Agreed, more or less. The question here is whether IP properly qualifies as property in this sense. As I've said, I can see it from both ends, and I have a hard time committing to one perspective or the other.

 

[smoking357]

Seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the founding fathers in this case was to benefit our society, not necessarily the individual. That's why I think interpret IP law as socialist.

Your analysis of our IP law is quite good, but is there yet a philosophical justification for the argument that a man is entitled to the profit or exclusive use of his own ideas?

 

[smoking357]

Agreed, more or less. The question here is whether IP properly qualifies as property in this sense. As I've said, I can see it from both ends, and I have a hard time committing to one perspective or the other.

And that is the question. I noted the permissible use of state force in answer to a tangent in the argument, not to the main thrust of the discussion.