- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Three Feet from Gold: Why ESR is Wrong to Advocate Compromise
|
|
|
Comments (101)
81 earlier comments in the full thread.
"Under your logic, the formula for Rearden Steel would immediately have become public property..."
How remarkably wrong. I am obviously not communicating well enough. Please go back and see where I mention both the 11 herbs and spices, and the recipe for Coca-Cola, as examples where both copyright and patent are irrelevant, it's considered a trade secret.
It is PATENT and COPYRIGHT, at least copyright before everything was copyrighted by default, where the formula/manuscript had to be published publicly in the patent office / library of congress.
The formula for Coca-Cola has featured in one of the more enjoyable speculative fiction stories as having been taken by government at gun point, from the last refugees who had tried to leave the country with it, because it had become illegal to have trade secrets. Something about it being "unfair competition".
I said, "When I like an artist, I buy their production."
Then, "No, you don't."
Yes, I do. I can get their ideas from the library, their music from the radio. If I like their _production_, I buy those things _produced_ by them. Their books, their records.
I may still hear their songs or see their writings, but if I don't like it I don't buy it.
"Do you really think that if the product looks and functions *exactly* like the original, that anyone gives a damn about "authorized?""
Yes. So do you, so does Dino. So do lots of people.
And if that isn't good enough, then those who are in it for the money will stop, and those who do it for the love of art will continue. It is my opinion that the resulting works will make up for quality the loss of the great quantity of crap produced under a restrictive legal IP environment.
"I think it's worth arguing that what you're advocating is just as artificial a system as the one we currently use."
Ignoring the fact that copyright and patent are LEGAL constructs. "What I'm advocating" is merely a repeal of the laws. What results will not be artificial at all, but the result of the society we all create.
I'm sorry that my communication has been so completely inadequate to the task, since I have said everything in this post previously. That means I am not being understood, so I will abstain from replying uselessly. If you have any question, or wish to correct me further, please look at what I've already written and see if your objection has already been answered.
How remarkably wrong. I am obviously not communicating well enough. Please go back and see where I mention both the 11 herbs and spices, and the recipe for Coca-Cola, as examples where both copyright and patent are irrelevant, it's considered a trade secret.
It is PATENT and COPYRIGHT, at least copyright before everything was copyrighted by default, where the formula/manuscript had to be published publicly in the patent office / library of congress.
The formula for Coca-Cola has featured in one of the more enjoyable speculative fiction stories as having been taken by government at gun point, from the last refugees who had tried to leave the country with it, because it had become illegal to have trade secrets. Something about it being "unfair competition".
I said, "When I like an artist, I buy their production."
Then, "No, you don't."
Yes, I do. I can get their ideas from the library, their music from the radio. If I like their _production_, I buy those things _produced_ by them. Their books, their records.
I may still hear their songs or see their writings, but if I don't like it I don't buy it.
"Do you really think that if the product looks and functions *exactly* like the original, that anyone gives a damn about "authorized?""
Yes. So do you, so does Dino. So do lots of people.
And if that isn't good enough, then those who are in it for the money will stop, and those who do it for the love of art will continue. It is my opinion that the resulting works will make up for quality the loss of the great quantity of crap produced under a restrictive legal IP environment.
"I think it's worth arguing that what you're advocating is just as artificial a system as the one we currently use."
Ignoring the fact that copyright and patent are LEGAL constructs. "What I'm advocating" is merely a repeal of the laws. What results will not be artificial at all, but the result of the society we all create.
I'm sorry that my communication has been so completely inadequate to the task, since I have said everything in this post previously. That means I am not being understood, so I will abstain from replying uselessly. If you have any question, or wish to correct me further, please look at what I've already written and see if your objection has already been answered.
I'm sorry, I do wish to answer one more concern:
"Upstarts like Linux compete head to head with Major Labels already, no major IP revolution needed."
Which also demonstrates the irrelevance of restrictive IP laws to actual innovation.
"Upstarts like Linux compete head to head with Major Labels already, no major IP revolution needed."
Which also demonstrates the irrelevance of restrictive IP laws to actual innovation.
Bob -
For the Record, the formula for Coke is not protected by Patent, copyright or trademark.
It is a trade secret.
For the Record, the formula for Coke is not protected by Patent, copyright or trademark.
It is a trade secret.
> It is a trade secret.
Well, we know for sure they had to take the coke out of it...
Well, we know for sure they had to take the coke out of it...
jimf
>Well, we know for sure they had to take the coke out of it...
Yeah, but sugar water cola just didn't have any right to it.
>Well, we know for sure they had to take the coke out of it...
Yeah, but sugar water cola just didn't have any right to it.
So we are left guessing the 'secret' ingredient....
I figured... Properly sterilized of course.
Dino, please take that little detail that you think I didn't know, and look back at what I was saying. See how that fits with what I said about patent and copyright both _revealing_ secrets, and that neither Coca-Cola, nor KFC, nor Krispy Kream doughnuts to add another, use copyright or patent to protect their recipe.s
Can you understand why I am so frustrated? All these posts and you _still_ thought I didn't know what a trade secret was? I would love to let you have the last word, if only you could say something that wasn't 1)about my position and 2)wrong.
Can you understand why I am so frustrated? All these posts and you _still_ thought I didn't know what a trade secret was? I would love to let you have the last word, if only you could say something that wasn't 1)about my position and 2)wrong.
Bob -
I misread. Sorry.
I don't, however, understand your rant. The purpose of patents is to bring things into the public domain. That seems like a good thing to me.
I misread. Sorry.
I don't, however, understand your rant. The purpose of patents is to bring things into the public domain. That seems like a good thing to me.
That may be the stated purpose, but that is not what has in fact been the result.
So I'm back to my original premise: Are the abuses under restrictive IP law (both enforcement and evasion) more destructive than beneficial, compared to _not_ having restrictive IP law? This is the question from a utilitarian standpoint.
From the standpoint of principle, by violating the principle of self-ownership, granting legal monopoly status through copyright and patent, it is hypocrisy to then prosecute "monopoly" as if it were a bad thing when it seems to occur privately. Either monopoly is bad, or it is not.
All I have said of my own position is that I wish to maximize individual liberty. Liberty to create, liberty to enjoy. Artificial restrictions, be it what I am allowed to do with a book, a plant extract, a weed, or yeast, is still an artificial restriction.
You wrote of "license agreements". Not once anywhere have I objected to license agreements in of themselves. A license agreement is _not_ an artificial restriction, it is something both parties have agreed to before hand. It is a _contract_. Law is not a contract. It is imposed by force.
So I'm back to my original premise: Are the abuses under restrictive IP law (both enforcement and evasion) more destructive than beneficial, compared to _not_ having restrictive IP law? This is the question from a utilitarian standpoint.
From the standpoint of principle, by violating the principle of self-ownership, granting legal monopoly status through copyright and patent, it is hypocrisy to then prosecute "monopoly" as if it were a bad thing when it seems to occur privately. Either monopoly is bad, or it is not.
All I have said of my own position is that I wish to maximize individual liberty. Liberty to create, liberty to enjoy. Artificial restrictions, be it what I am allowed to do with a book, a plant extract, a weed, or yeast, is still an artificial restriction.
You wrote of "license agreements". Not once anywhere have I objected to license agreements in of themselves. A license agreement is _not_ an artificial restriction, it is something both parties have agreed to before hand. It is a _contract_. Law is not a contract. It is imposed by force.
>Either monopoly is bad, or it is not.
It's not quite that simple. We don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies. American law does not recognize the simple acquisition of a monopoly as a bad thing.
We also have a long history of regulated monopolies where, at some point, it seemed to make sense -- mostly in the areas of electric and natural gas generation/distribution.
What breaks the law is abusive use of monopoly power -- leveraging that power in a way to foreclose competition.
Patent and Copyright laws (not so much on copyright any more -- and a giant GRRRR!!!! on that) represent a trade-off for the public interest: a temporary monopoly in exchange for giving up trade secrets to the public domain. When things are working the way they should, patents encourage investments in R&D -- more inventions -- while funneling knowledge into the public domain. The clearest case of this activity is in the pharmaceutical industry and the constant stream of drugs going off patent and becoming available as generics.
It's not quite that simple. We don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies. American law does not recognize the simple acquisition of a monopoly as a bad thing.
We also have a long history of regulated monopolies where, at some point, it seemed to make sense -- mostly in the areas of electric and natural gas generation/distribution.
What breaks the law is abusive use of monopoly power -- leveraging that power in a way to foreclose competition.
Patent and Copyright laws (not so much on copyright any more -- and a giant GRRRR!!!! on that) represent a trade-off for the public interest: a temporary monopoly in exchange for giving up trade secrets to the public domain. When things are working the way they should, patents encourage investments in R&D -- more inventions -- while funneling knowledge into the public domain. The clearest case of this activity is in the pharmaceutical industry and the constant stream of drugs going off patent and becoming available as generics.
"We don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies."
Ah, you might want to read up on the subject.
Ah, you might want to read up on the subject.
Bob -
You might want to read up on the subject. I did enough of that in law school.
You might want to read up on the subject. I did enough of that in law school.
Then why does the SEC reject mergers?
Doing so cannot be in response to "monopolistic acts", because the "monopoly" doesn't even exist yet to have acted at all.
Therefore, the SEC _must_ be basing their decision solely on the combined historical sales profiles, which directly contradicts your statement that "monopolies" are not legally punished merely for being "monopolies".
Doing so cannot be in response to "monopolistic acts", because the "monopoly" doesn't even exist yet to have acted at all.
Therefore, the SEC _must_ be basing their decision solely on the combined historical sales profiles, which directly contradicts your statement that "monopolies" are not legally punished merely for being "monopolies".
Bob, Bob, Bob...
I said that we don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies. That has nothing to do with examining mergers that might create monopolies.
BTW - I could be wrong, but I think you've got your agencies mixed up.
The SEC does approve the mergers of publicly traded companies, but I don't think antitrust is their concern. More a matter of ensuring no market hanky-panky.
The FTC, however, is very concerned with the anti-competitive effect of mergers. Note, however, that the FTC mandate is not to prevent monopolies, but to preserve a competitive market. The two are related but not the same.
I said that we don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies. That has nothing to do with examining mergers that might create monopolies.
BTW - I could be wrong, but I think you've got your agencies mixed up.
The SEC does approve the mergers of publicly traded companies, but I don't think antitrust is their concern. More a matter of ensuring no market hanky-panky.
The FTC, however, is very concerned with the anti-competitive effect of mergers. Note, however, that the FTC mandate is not to prevent monopolies, but to preserve a competitive market. The two are related but not the same.
Dino, I think you're reaching.
One specific reasoning I've read of announcements of denied mergers is the supposed creation of a monopoly position.
Therefore, "monopolies" are being legally punished. Even monopolies that have never existed.
SEC, FTC, ETC, I don't care. You said "We". "We" haven't done anything, actually, since I never agreed to any of this intrusion into other peoples business.
One specific reasoning I've read of announcements of denied mergers is the supposed creation of a monopoly position.
Therefore, "monopolies" are being legally punished. Even monopolies that have never existed.
SEC, FTC, ETC, I don't care. You said "We". "We" haven't done anything, actually, since I never agreed to any of this intrusion into other peoples business.
Bob -
The facts are the facts. If you don't like them, there is nothing I can do about it.
The facts are the facts. If you don't like them, there is nothing I can do about it.
Dino, I couldn't agree more.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Bob-- that's nebulous. If you're referring to DRM and the ability to transfer music/movies/etc. from one media to another, then I agree. But you seem to take for granted the composition itself. Attribution is important, but whether or not that's enough is a choice that is up to the author or composer, not to you. That's my freedom in the free market; if you don't like the license restrictions of my product, then go buy (or take freely, in what you seem to be advocating) someone else's.
"Ayn Rand had an interesting insight into this."
Again, you're basically admitting that the problem is a matter of scale. And you've misconstrued Rand's views on the matter. Under your logic, the formula for Rearden Steel would immediately have become public property, and Rand would never have condoned such an obvious theft; half of Atlas Shrugged is about how *against* that kind of intellectual theft she is.
"When I like an artist, I buy their production."
No, you don't. You're buying their concept, their ideas, of which their 'production' is just a physical representation. That intellectual *private* property may have taken years of work and thought and rethinking (Rearden Steel, anyone?), and it's the right of the creator to decide in what manner they wish to be compensated for it. Under your system, someone can copy the physical representation down to the atom and sell it at a profit and all they have to do is say, "Thanks, Mr. Creator." Do you really think that if the product looks and functions *exactly* like the original, that anyone gives a damn about "authorized?" (edit: who the hell buys Johnson & Johnson brand Q-tips anymore?)
I think it's worth arguing that what you're advocating is just as artificial a system as the one we currently use. Upstarts like Linux compete head to head with Major Labels already, no major IP revolution needed.