What about patents?

[synapz]

As a business major, the biggest restriction on innovation is to NOT have a patent system or a system of intellectual property rights. Without the patent system, there is no motivation to invent something new, because those with more money and resources than yourself can simply copy your design and gain the profits. You will never have a chance to profit off your innovation because you will never have as many resources as the microsofts of the world....who will use those resources to capitalise on your idea/invention before you have a chance.

Like it or not, the patent system protects the "little guys" and encourages innovation.

That's just it. I'm not interested in a system that "protects" me if I must give up my liberty in exchange. For example, If Bob sells Sam a product that Joe invented without compensating Joe in any way, neither Bob nor Sam are using force against Joe. In fact, the whole thing has nothing to do with Joe at all! It's a mutually voluntary exchange in which Joe has no say.

What about Joe's innovation? If he were wise, he would have approached a producer with a nondisclosure agreement and asked them to make and sell his product for a royalty. The producer, being the only one privy to the knowledge of Joe's invention before it hits the marketplace, could rapidly flood the market with the product and make it difficult for competitors to enter. They would, eventually, of course, but not before Joe received a handsome sum for his work. Further, companies would be able to bring prices on the product down sooner than in the arbitrary 17-year (or whatever it is) life span of current patents. Instead of focusing on a cheaper product than the original producer, they would also be forced to innovate on the idea in order to find a profitable niche.

All that is fine, but the point to take away from all this is that it is important to do the right thing, not look for some outcome that you think is the best. Stick to the nonaggression axiom, and your political philosophy will generally be extremely sound.

Also, if you have not yet read it, look into Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." It is the most astounding book on political philosophy I have read in my entire life.

 

[Banana]

For me, this comes down to the use of force. If you use force to steal someone's idea, then that's wrong. If you use force to prevent someone from peacefully manufacturing and selling something, then that's wrong. I think with regard to patent law, the situation will be the latter.

and you wouldn't say patent law prevent the former scenario? In that scenario the "force" would be the absence of capital & risk of developing the product.

 

[nickcoons]

A painter Joe has been hired to paint Sam's house. After a long and hard work, Joe is finally finished, and will return when Sam is home to collect his bill.

It so happens that a painter Bill stops by Sam's house before Joe does, and presents Sam with a bill, and Sam agrees with the amount due and pays it. Ordinarily, Joe should able to take Sam to court and force Sam to pay the bill even if Sam paid Bill; it's Sam's fault for having paid the wrong painter.

But suppose the judge ruled that since Bill is a painter, it was expected that he should charge for his service and it's basically Joe's fault for not getting the bill from Sam before Joe did.

Would that be the case if we didn't have patent laws?

No.. there would have been a voluntary contract between Joe and Sam, to which Joe would paint Sam's house, and Sam would paint Joe's house. If Sam does not pay Joe (whether or not he pays anyone else), then he is in breech of this agreement.

Your analogy is more closely related to the way the patent system works now. If Joe invented painting and that secret leaked out to Bill, and Bill beat him to the patent office, then Bill would own the invention of painting simply because he showed up first.

 

[nickcoons]

The possibility of punishment (Patents/NDA's/etc...) for defecting insures cooperation though.

Grouping NDAs with patents is disingenuous, because they are not the same at all. In a society free of patents and copyrights, NDAs are contracts and would continue to exist, and enforcing them would be a legitimate function of government in a libertarian society.

 

[Banana]

No.. there would have been a voluntary contract between Joe and Sam, to which Joe would paint Sam's house, and Sam would paint Joe's house. If Sam does not pay Joe (whether or not he pays anyone else), then he is in breech of this agreement.

That's what a sensible Judge would have ruled, yes. I wanted to test whether this analogy can be extrapolated to an inventor inventing something with his labor only to see someone else get paid for that product.

Your analogy is more closely related to the way the patent system works now. If Joe invented painting and that secret leaked out to Bill, and Bill beat him to the patent office, then Bill would own the invention of painting simply because he showed up first.

FWIW, I understand that patent office of US, unlike EU's, doesn't necessarily go by who filed first; if there are challenge, the patent office will investigate into who actually invested in the development first. Of course, just because that's what they claim to do, doesn't mean this is done in practice, though...

 

[nickcoons]

As a business major, the biggest restriction on innovation is to NOT have a patent system or a system of intellectual property rights. Without the patent system, there is no motivation to invent something new, because those with more money and resources than yourself can simply copy your design and gain the profits.

Except that your argument holds no basis in history, because there was no lack of innovation before a patent system. Of course, given the choice, a business will take a monopoly on their idea over no monopoly, because it's in their self-interest. But that in no way means that, in the event that everyone is on a level playing field, there would be no innovation. That argument has a logical disconnect.

You will never have a chance to profit off your innovation because you will never have as many resources as the microsofts of the world....who will use those resources to capitalise on your idea/invention before you have a chance.

Which again, has no basis in history. Open source has provided much more to the technical world than Microsoft has. While open source software is technically copyrighted in the sense that the original author owns it, that copyright doesn't have much teeth to it since it pretty much gives any recipient of the software the ability to use it any way they'd like.

Like it or not, the patent system protects the "little guys" and encourages innovation.

Then why is it that the "big guys" own the majority of patents?

 

[angelatc]

I didn't read anything but the OPs post. i like patents if it is a real original ideal. that needs protection from thieves looking to steal ones ideas. If you come up with an original ideal, you should be able to secure that same ideal until YOU are ready to sell or use it.

Apparently it was Ben Franklin who pushed for this to be included in the constitution. He saw how men were being robbed of their ideas and how important it was to balance the power. He also knew how important it was to put a time limit on the protection to keep monopolies from assuming control.

I'm far more likely to defend patent rights than I am copyrights though. "Useful arts" is certainly a debateable context.

 

[SimpleName]

It is a property right. If you create a process of doing something, surely you deserve to own the rights to that process for some length of time. Huge companies could easily steal ideas, mass produce them, and you don't even have a chance to start manufacturing them with any sufficient pace. When a corporation takes your process for producing something, they are stealing your property. As long as it is a physical object, it is certainly your property. Patents, looking at it this way, seem necessary.

In addition, copyrights are 100% necessary to establish property rights. If I produce music or a movie, I need to have protection from other people selling my work...MY PROPERTY. It is like other people taking my income. It is MY property. I should have the right to do as I please with it. While "sharing" it is a different problem, no one should be allowed to take my works and make profit from them.

 

[magicmike]

Except that your argument holds no basis in history, because there was no lack of innovation before a patent system.

Before when? The concept has existed for at least 500 years. And if you are talking that far back, there could be prestige and honor as a motivation to invent.

Open source has provided much more to the technical world than Microsoft has.

Technical? Yes , Consumer end user? No

While open source software is technically copyrighted in the sense that the original author owns it, that copyright doesn't have much teeth to it since it pretty much gives any recipient of the software the ability to use it any way they'd like.

(Before I start I am against long term software patents and handing them out in cracker jack boxes.)
Open source (in the way you wrote of it, i'm assuming the GNU and variants) is not the best example to use for this, BSD has done more commercial success (Apple, Solaris, Microsoft's TCP/IP, and literally unknown others.) Than traditional GNU and variant licenses. So if you are approaching this from a commerce standpoint then yes it's obvious that giving something away without restrictions creates markets, but I don't believe the creators of BSD are in the fortune 500. They made that choice based upon the philosophy of what software should be. (Which I agree with). The GNU/variants model however, closes (larger margin) profitability because of the requirement to release the source code with distribution. Thus many distributions rely on support contracts or binary distribution to make a buck, (And I believe also hold off on improvement in some areas to ensure support contracts are maintained) Which may explain why it has not done so well in a consumerism model.
In the road ahead though I see the idea of software patents as irrelevant, most of the power will lie in who controls the networks and their hardware. You could conceivably be using some type of terminal access and not really care what it's running on. The divide would come by computers reaching a DNA or Quantum state as to be too dangerous or expensive to own. At that point it's useless to have the source code when you can't even recompile on your own computer.

On an off note I would love to see someone create a business model based upon Open source principals.

Then why is it that the "big guys" own the majority of patents?

That's like asking why whales eat more fish...
Because they buy it outright from the "little guy", have more engineers, research funds, acquisitions (especially Microsoft), and as a generalization real inventors are using their brain power for inventing, not for common business sense.
The question also leads to the impression that there are no more "genuine individual inventors" whose livelihood depends on continuing to invent, rather than the average Joe who gets an idea in the shower?

Also I want to raise a issue that is more academic then business, but how do you recognize who invented something? Ask who invented the hamburger and you can get 7 different answers. On the other side of the argument ask who invented the wiring method in your house and most will say Thomas Edison, you would be wrong though it was Tesla (not the rock band). And yet Tesla had over 700 patents, it is disappointing how that part of patents have failed.

I know that I am arguing both ways, but my view is why throw the baby (protection) out with the very dirty bathwater (the muddled mess of what patents have become)?

 

[magicmike]

Here is an idea, create an alternative to patents but require something "Open source like" of a license agreement whereby anybody can produce this product but have to agree to X% of profits to original inventor and any improvements can allow the "improver " to add to this license to charge a x% to future producers. On top of this shorten the span to 10 years so that it encourages innovators to quickly add on to it.

hmmmmm I think I have something here..... I better patent it.... JK

 

[AutoDas]

How can you protectionists define the lifespan of patents? Your whole argument is the belief that an idea is property. The solution is always to revamp the patent office to stop frivolous lawsuits, but then the government gets to decide on what is obvious. How is that not regulating thought? Who's to say that someone else couldn't think of the same improvement or process? Companies spent more money on lawsuits last year than they did on research and development.

 

[synapz]

I'd like to note here that everyone supporting the idea of patents appears to be doing so because of some results that they want, not out of some principle.

Sam builds a hammer and sells it to Joe. This transaction has nothing to do with Bob, who invented the hammer. What natural right does Bob have to step in between them and say, "No! Sam, do not build that hammer and sell it to Joe!" It's none of his business, despite it being his invention.

If Bob wants to make money from his idea, he needs to market it properly (just like every other product), not set up a government-enforced monopoly of his idea.

 

[magicmike]

How can you protectionists define the lifespan of patents? Your whole argument is the belief that an idea is property. The solution is always to revamp the patent office to stop frivolous lawsuits, but then the government gets to decide on what is obvious. How is that not regulating thought? Who's to say that someone else couldn't think of the same improvement or process? Companies spent more money on lawsuits last year than they did on research and development.

 

[magicmike]

AutoDas ^ how do you feel about me copying everything you said exactly without credit to you?

 

[magicmike]

I'd like to note here that everyone supporting the idea of patents appears to be doing so because of some results that they want, not out of some principle.

Sam builds a hammer and sells it to Joe. This transaction has nothing to do with Bob, who invented the hammer. What natural right does Bob have to step in between them and say, "No! Sam, do not build that hammer and sell it to Joe!" It's none of his business, despite it being his invention.

If Bob wants to make money from his idea, he needs to market it properly (just like every other product), not set up a government-enforced monopoly of his idea.

 

[magicmike]

And synapz what makes you feel that you own the words you just said? ^^^

 

[magicmike]

And there is a underlying principle, that genuine inventors are an asset to a nation. That innovation drives economy, and that Real Inventors need to be doing what comes naturally to them rather than setting up businesses for the 5 or 6 ideas they get everyday.

 

[synapz]

And synapz what makes you feel that you own the words you just said? ^^^

What makes you think I feel I own those words? How can I "own" something like that? If someone asks me if I typed them, I will say yes, but I won't say that they can't use them.

 

[synapz]

And there is a underlying principle, that genuine inventors are an asset to a nation. That innovation drives economy, and that Real Inventors need to be doing what comes naturally to them rather than setting up businesses for the 5 or 6 ideas they get everyday.

Inventors can and do benefit others, this is true; I don't think anyone is arguing this. What I am arguing about is whether or not the use of force is justified in order to prevent someone else from manufacturing and selling a product without the inventor's "permission". It is clear to me that using force in this scenario is not justified.

It is not okay to use force against Sam for selling a hammer to Joe when Bob invented the hammer. The transaction has nothing to do with Bob. He has no natural right to prevent this voluntary and mutual exchange from occurring. Bob only has the right to use force in self defense, and that can only be done when someone uses aggressive force against him. That is not happening here, so Bob can neither morally use force against Sam or Joe, nor can he morally enlist others (no matter how many agree with him) to use force against Sam or Joe.

Once again, if Bob has a product he wishes to market (in this case, his invention of the hammer), then it is upon him to market it wisely. Wise marketing is clearly moral, where enlisting the government to help you monopolize your idea is not.

 

[AutoDas]

AutoDas ^ how do you feel about me copying everything you said exactly without credit to you?

Can I not quote you or do you copyright everything you say? After all, no one but you could possibly string some words together and come up with a thought that is so unique.

I don't feel like I own words. You just happen to arrange them in the same order. Now, I'm sure public image may be hurt if you continue to plagiarize and no one will trust what you're saying. Is that really in your rational self-interest?