What about patents?

magicmike said:
Could you direct me to some good sources (Learning is a lifelong love for me).

But I get the feeling more that we are having two different arguments, yours is more abstract than my personal feelings for the well being of my friends.

Is there a Libertarian idea on how to protect the individual who creates a unique product? Say for instance the hammer is not invented, I invent it sell a single one for $2 to another guy, he has more money and mass produces it, makes billions, and I make $2. Do you think I want to invent anything else?
How exactly do you solve that problem? (And you can't cheat no abstractions!)
Click to expand...

Keep it a secret. That's how. Depends on how the system works. Pure free market/anarchic society? Free market minarchist society? This society? Look at how things were before IP laws.
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
Keep it a secret. That's how. Depends on how the system works. Pure free market/anarchic society? Free market minarchist society? This society? Look at how things were before IP laws.
Click to expand...

Well keeping a secret is for magicians, I should know it's a lifelong hobby. But what you may not know is that despite the secretive nature we do keep fairly accurate records of who invented a particular move or slight. And generally look down upon people who don't quote sources. Not nearly as chaotic as most would think.

So that could be an example of a system. Maintain records of individual inventions and who improved upon them and so on. A bit like the Open Source model, yet that still needs some more thought on how to be profitable.
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
Keep it a secret. That's how.
Click to expand...

This is useless. Reverse engineering? De-compiling? Buying a product and studying it?

Patent existed because without patent, nobody would make money off for their new products- it'd be immediately stolen by existing companies with more resources as soon as the idea hit the market.

Now, I have some misgivings, especially with pharma patents but do not know enough to make an informed argument beyond that patent does have a reason for its existence.

Intellectual property, OTOH, is a quagmire and probably best disposed of.
 
magicmike said:
Well keeping a secret is for magicians, I should know it's a lifelong hobby. But what you may not know is that despite the secretive nature we do keep fairly accurate records of who invented a particular move or slight. And generally look down upon people who don't quote sources. Not nearly as chaotic as most would think.

So that could be an example of a system. Maintain records of individual inventions and who improved upon them and so on. A bit like the Open Source model, yet that still needs some more thought on how to be profitable.
Click to expand...

Well, we should look to solutions that don't involve the mafia (government). I find it hard to believe that inventors won't invent anything, just because they fear their ideas being stolen lol. "I would love to invent things, but I fear my ideas being stolen, so I guess I just won't invent anything."
 
What is this person with $2,000 capital going to do with some patents? It doesn't sound like he has the resources and know-how to produce it so he's going to sue companies who violate the patent. What he should have done is found some people that would be interested in his IDEA and try to get them to pay for it. He should keep it a secret. Patents are government granted monopolies. Corporatism is not part of the free market. People make money buy actually bringing their ideas to life. Having multiple ways of doing the same thing is just a waste of resources.

About copyright laws, do you actually think laws are what makes the world go 'round? People will know that if they like a program, but don't support it then it is likely to go away. It's not theft, no one is poorer for downloading a video.
 
Last edited:
JosephTheLibertarian said:
"I would love to invent things, but I fear my ideas being stolen, so I guess I just won't invent anything."
Click to expand...

No. It's more like:

"If I invent this, someone will copy it and make money off it and I'll be still at square one financially. Why bother pouring my money and taking a risk just to see it get picked up by a bigger company and peddled as their? What's the use?"
 
AutoDas said:
What is this person with $2,000 capital going to do with some patents? It doesn't sound like he has the resources and know-how to produce it so he's going to sue companies who violate the patent. What he should have done is found some people that would be interested in his IDEA and try to get them to pay for it. He should keep it a secret. Patents are government granted monopolies. Corporatism is not part of the free market. People make money buy actually bringing their ideas to life. Having multiple ways of doing the same thing is just a waste of resources.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand, he needs some kind of recourse if somebody takes his UNIQUE idea and outright steals it!
You seem to be a very trusting person if you believe that can never happen.

People make money buy actually bringing their ideas to life.
Click to expand...
Really! I've got one word for you, Linux. Where's the direct money to idea pattern there? they make money solely off support.

I believe if more thought is put into this there will be a solution, But it is definitely insulting to put down genuine innovation and original work as if it did not matter.

Maybe it's a hard point to understand, so many of these Ron Paul videos on youtube used copyright material (legally under fair use of course) but imagine you had to capture every bit of that footage yourself? Fly to Iraq to capture original war footage, then off to debates, rallys, and crying parents.
 
AutoDas said:
It's not theft, no one is poorer for downloading a video.
Click to expand...

Really? how about an instructional video? How about a video explaining original magic tricks that took a lifetime to invent? The "Secret" immediately looses value then.
That's kind of like a persons livelihood. and thus theft of property.

I have trouble understanding where you are coming form, are you for Digital Rights Management? Because i'm not.

Maybe a more reasonable idea is a strict enforcement of NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements)
 
IPSecure said:
Gates wants patent power... This was 2004!

Microsoft's chairman said Thursday that the company expects to file 3,000 patent applications this year, up from a little over 2,000 last year and 1,000 just a few years ago.

http://www.news.com/Gates-wants-patent-power/2100-1014_3-5288722.html
Click to expand...

Well that has more to do with playing the patent office system, I have been told before by some scientists that the Patent office is more of a "resubmit till you get it" kind of system now. It's being played and overly abused, the Idea of patents has merit, just not to this extent. A very big concern is changing the system to "first come first serve" which looks like it may have passed in the house or is close to. This would give corporates pretty much the power to draw official looking doodles and claim patent of absurd things.
 
magicmike said:
You don't seem to understand, he needs some kind of recourse if somebody takes his UNIQUE idea and outright steals it!
You seem to be a very trusting person if you believe that can never happen.


Really! I've got one word for you, Linux. Where's the direct money to idea pattern there? they make money solely off support.

I believe if more thought is put into this there will be a solution, But it is definitely insulting to put down genuine innovation and original work as if it did not matter.

Maybe it's a hard point to understand, so many of these Ron Paul videos on youtube used copyright material (legally under fair use of course) but imagine you had to capture every bit of that footage yourself? Fly to Iraq to capture original war footage, then off to debates, rallys, and crying parents.
Click to expand...
What the hell are blabbing about? Read what I said. You're even against fair use? DRM has it's use in subscription music so screw off. Because we really need laws to tell us how to buy stuff? By your logic, Amazon and iTunes shouldn't be selling more than one DRM-free track since it can be shared. People are not as ignorant as you, they know to support what they like to get more of it. You cannot prove that someone would've bought something they downloaded. Why the hell would somebody invent something if they are not going to market it?
 
Last edited:
AutoDas said:
What the hell are blabbing about? Read what I said. You're even against fair use? DRM has it's use in subscription music so screw off. Because we really need laws to tell us how to buy stuff? By your logic, Amazon and iTunes shouldn't be selling more than one DRM-free track since it can be shared. People are not as ignorant as you, they know to support what they like to get more of it.
Click to expand...

I never said I was against fair use, just that it's hard to understand how much work goes into something when you get it for free.

And DRM is a backwards corporate idea, there are better solutions that ensure rights are transfered to individuals rather than to a piece of hardware.
Look up some of the watermark ideas out there, tie this in with a NDA contract and you have a better solution than hardware tied DRM.
 
Last edited:
JosephTheLibertarian said:
Look at how things were before IP laws.
Click to expand...

I would like to get back to your point there Joseph, Natural examples could be cowboys branding their cattle with a specific logo, how did they naturally maintain distinctiveness to ensure cattle were not stolen and claimed (intentionally or unintentionally) by another cowboy with a similar logo?
 
I have nothing against patents and the like, but the duration should probably come down. Songs can be copyrighted for 100 years in America. How many people live to get the full benefit of that? How many sons and daughters live off their parents royalties? How many writers substitute royalty checks for a real retirement fund? Such long durations for copyrights only encourages laziness.
 
There is an excellent article that I found several years ago titled The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. I found the page for it here:

http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

However, it's now coming up with a 404 error. But it is available in Google's cache here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...opyrights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en

I have no idea how long it will be there, so go to it quickly, and save a copy of it on your own system if you want to be able to reference it in the future.
 
magicmike said:
Maybe it's a hard point to understand, so many of these Ron Paul videos on youtube used copyright material (legally under fair use of course) but imagine you had to capture every bit of that footage yourself? Fly to Iraq to capture original war footage, then off to debates, rallys, and crying parents.
Click to expand...



How about reimbursing the person that actually did all those things for you?

I think that copyrights and patents should only belong to individuals, and not to organizations or corporations. (Like that will ever happen.....)
 
AutoDas said:
I am vehemently against patents and just as much as copyright laws for "intellectual property." (thought crime)
I am against anything that restricts competition, innovation, and free trade.



I proudly embrace the term Yankee because during Jefferson's presidency, America ignored international patent laws and the people overseas thought of that as piracy.
Click to expand...

I have thought long and hard about IP and patents specifically.

I think along the same lines as Ayn Rand on this issue... as long as patents avoid organizations and corporations, and belong to only individual people, you are protecting the individuals claim to innovation.

"The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it -- i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal. A man is not forced to apply for a patent or copyright; he may give his idea away, if he so chooses; but if he wishes to exercise his property right, the government will protect it, as it protects all other rights. ... The patent or copyright notice on a physical object represents a public statement of the conditions on which the inventor or author is willing to sell his product: for the purchaser's use, but not for commercial reproduction."

-Ayn Rand
 
nickcoons said:
There is an excellent article that I found several years ago titled The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. I found the page for it here:

http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

However, it's now coming up with a 404 error. But it is available in Google's cache here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...opyrights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en

I have no idea how long it will be there, so go to it quickly, and save a copy of it on your own system if you want to be able to reference it in the future.
Click to expand...

How do I save it? Or do you mean copy & paste to wordpad?
 
I don't really believe in IP, but I can accept that it can be beneficial to a society within limitation.

I think patents should be limited to 10 years, and we need much stricter limits on what can actually be patented. Software patents should definitely not be allowed, and of what remains, they should probably not grant at least half of them. If someone invents an awesome new invention and brings it to market, let them have their monopoly for a short time, they earned it. If multiple people independently come up with the same idea, then it probably shouldn't be patentable, since it wasn't all that original after all. 10 years is plenty of time to make money on a new invention or technology, and if you can't do anything with it by then, well its time to forfeit your right to it and let someone who knows what they are doing take over.

I think the patent office should also keep a running tab of how many patents are submitted by a company. Each time you submit a patent and it is rejected, your fee for filing a patent will go up. This would keep companies from spamming the system with nonsense patents. Of course, this might be circumvented by setting up dummy companies or something, so maybe that idea needs to be re-thought, but its a good start, I think.

Copyright also needs to be seriously reexamined. Works should have to be specifically copyrighted--no more of this "automatic copyright" nonsense. Copyright should also come in 5 year terms, renewable to a maximum of 20 years. That would be lovely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Copyrights lasting beyond the death of the creator are unconstitutional
Replies
12
Views
5K
Invisible Man
I
PAF
The Overpopulation Fallacy: Why More People Means More Knowledge and Prosperity
Replies
0
Views
31
PAF
PAF
PAF
The New Radical Right
Replies
1
Views
68
PAF
PAF
PAF
The Mises-Hoiles Correspondence: What Might Have Been
Replies
0
Views
922
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
Disney's copyright on (early) Mickey Mouse is about to expire
Replies
0
Views
493
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top