What about patents?

[magicmike]

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?

Well obviously the example I was trying to prove did not come out right, add to the example that by some means I was able to post exactly what you said seconds before you and take credit for your posts?

I'm trying to help the understanding of taking of someones idea and claiming credit.

 

[magicmike]

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.

Ok How about this...
I'll re-post an earlier post I made because it may have goten overlooked.

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.

Under the change from "By force patent" change to a open to everyone to make/manufacture BUT must enter into a license agreement to ensure a percentage payment.
If this idea is further thought out with the requirement that all patents under this model must be available to everyone, and open to improvements with potential to make profit for your added improvements. this can also ensure continued innovation with credit and if chosen payment to the "improvers". Which can also allow for free market competition of which is a better improvement,
Management of these improvements would have a trademark type of system to prevent confusion of originators.

Basically a free market system with a method of tracking the innovators/improver's and giving them credit and monetary value (if they so chose)

 

[synapz]

Ok How about this...
I'll re-post an earlier post I made because it may have goten overlooked.

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.

Under the change from "By force patent" change to a open to everyone to make/manufacture BUT must enter into a license agreement to ensure a percentage payment.
If this idea is further thought out with the requirement that all patents under this model must be available to everyone, and open to improvements with potential to make profit for your added improvements. this can also ensure continued innovation with credit and if chosen payment to the "improvers". Which can also allow for free market competition of which is a better improvement,
Management of these improvements would have a trademark type of system to prevent confusion of originators.

Basically a free market system with a method of tracking the innovators/improver's and giving them credit and monetary value (if they so chose)

I don't have a problem with any system that is not imposed by the use of force. Many of us on this thread believe not only that such a system would arise from the free market, but that it would ultimately benefit everyone involved (inventor, producer, retailer, consumer) far more than today's arbitrary and government force-imposed patent system.

All of us want to see inventors rewarded for their work. Some of us would simply prefer to see that take place in an ethical way, versus the government idea monopolies we have today.

Mike, your primary concern seems to be that huge companies would swoop in and steal the profit from the inventor. Several of us gave examples of how the inventor could avoid such a thing by entering into a nondisclosure agreement with a producer. Did you get the chance to read these examples?

 

[nickcoons]

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.

Stating a natural law is not a property right. Just as it is a law of nature that copper conducts electricity (therefore I can't patent that), it is also a law of nature that a given amount of copper arranged in such a way with a certain chemical creates a battery.

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.

You seem to be entering this thread in the middle without having read previous posts first, as we've already given examples of how inventors can avoid this.

When a corporation takes your process for producing something, they are stealing your property.

No they aren't. Ideas are not property. If I steal your property (car, house, shoes), I'm depriving you of them. If I "steal" your idea, I have deprived you of nothing.

As long as it is a physical object, it is certainly your property. Patents, looking at it this way, seem necessary.

No one is arguing "for" stealing a physical object. And patents don't protect against theft of those objects.

In addition, copyrights are 100% necessary to establish property rights.

So you're saying that property rights don't exist without government force?

If I produce music or a movie, I need to have protection from other people selling my work...MY PROPERTY.

You need to protect your own ideas, not ask the government to impose force on your behalf.

It is like other people taking my income.

It is like nothing of the sort.

I should have the right to do as I please with it.

And you have that right.. including the right to market it intelligently so that you do so in such a way as to prevent competition from profiting with it.

 

[nickcoons]

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.

Could that not be a motivating factor today?

Technical? Yes , Consumer end user? No

Without the technical end of computers, there is no consumer end. The bulk of the internet is run using open-source software. Without this infrastructure, there would be no end-user.

Many people believe that the internet and consumer-level computer usage is where it is today because of Microsoft. I believe that it's where it is in spite of Microsoft, but that's a different topic.

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

http://www.sugarcrm.com
http://www.canonical.com

Are these not what you're looking for?

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?

Sure it is.. but the comment that the question related to was sort of absurd, claiming that patents protect the little guys, when it's the big guys that are far more protected with patents.

There certainly are individual inventors. I've come up with many product ideas, some of which I've implemented and profited from, none of which I've patented. Not only do I not patent them, but I publicly post how others can replicate them.. because in my specific situation, I don't see a threat in competition. That's not always the case. But again, examples have been given in this thread how an inventor can protect himself without patents.

Also I want to raise a issue that is more academic then business, but how do you recognize who invented something?

I'm not sure that it really matters, other than academically, as you point out, or for prestige. It probably depends on how it was marketed. If it used the NDA method mentioned earlier in this thread, credit could be a clause in the contract. Maybe the inventor would require that the producer stamp his name on each of the products.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Ideas are the product of your time, your intellect, and your hard work. They are every bit as real and tangible as any physical product you can hold in your hand. Just as you don't have a right to steal your neighbors property, you don't have a right to steal their ideas.

Look you assholes, pay for the freakin music CD if you want to listen to it. Or at least if you are going to steal from someone, don't try to pretend it isn't theft, or that you are somehow more enlightened for your thievery. You're not. You're just a cheap, parasitic piratical bastard.

 

[synapz]

Ideas are the product of your time, your intellect, and your hard work. They are every bit as real and tangible as any physical product you can hold in your hand. Just as you don't have a right to steal your neighbors property, you don't have a right to steal their ideas.

Look you assholes, pay for the freakin music CD if you want to listen to it. Or at least if you are going to steal from someone, don't try to pretend it isn't theft, or that you are somehow more enlightened for your thievery. You're not. You're just a cheap, parasitic piratical bastard.

What natural law is Sam breaking when he sells Joe a hammer, which was invented by Bob? I see none. Unless Sam uses force against Bob to wrest from his mind the invention of the hammer, Sam has done no wrong. What I do see wrong is Bob enlisting the strong arm of the government to enforce a monopoly on an idea. Sam need not use force to accomplish his ends of manufacturing and selling a product, but Bob must use force to prevent Sam from manufacturing and selling a hammer.

 

[Banana]

and you don't think Sam is using force in sense of omission to profit off Bob's capital of developing the product?

 

[magicmike]

Stating a natural law is not a property right. Just as it is a law of nature that copper conducts electricity (therefore I can't patent that), it is also a law of nature that a given amount of copper arranged in such a way with a certain chemical creates a battery.

Doesn't that dispel the discovery of that natural fact? Not going to say it's patentable BUT it still is a (maybe unintended) solution. This is where the DNA patents come in and the needs to be clarification of "Solution" at this point.

Also would like to clarify some of the other words to get on the same page.

Ideas = well anybody can have an idea, even fantastic ones (look at science fiction) that can become real. This should never be patentable

Invention = This is taking raw material and through engineering, creating the process to achieve the idea. The solution to an idea should have the option to be protected, and by my definition not by monopoly of patent, but through a system I outlined earlier managed by a internationally recognized non-profit organization

Innovation = Improving the invention, to meet with changing market demand.
This is where patents mess everything up, and stunt economic growth. And where most of us have issue.

Without the technical end of computers, there is no consumer end. The bulk of the internet is run using open-source software. Without this infrastructure, there would be no end-user.

Many people believe that the internet and consumer-level computer usage is where it is today because of Microsoft. I believe that it's where it is in spite of Microsoft, but that's a different topic.

Nick I would love to debate you on computers on a different topic, I can't argue on the networking side BSD is to thank for that end. Determining how much market Apple or Microsoft would have had without patents is hard to debate though I would say Microsoft would have done better from their business practices. I do know for certain that very few of us would have had the patience in the 90's to even re-compile a program to get it to work. GNU/Linux was still young then, and without software patents I would say it would have shortened the "Critical mass" dream to 2002 - 2003.

http://www.sugarcrm.com
http://www.canonical.com

Are these not what you're looking for?

Actually I am fully aware of both of them, SugarCRM is one I over viewed and chose to go with vTiger (Forked full open source version) for a client.

And Canonical is harder to understand their business model. (unless they are expecting to be at the forefront of linux's "Critical Mass" stage)

My question was more towards creating a more bottom up efficient corporation model. IBM and SUN seem to be experimenting with this.

 

[magicmike]

Look you assholes, pay for the freakin music CD if you want to listen to it. Or at least if you are going to steal from someone, don't try to pretend it isn't theft, or that you are somehow more enlightened for your thievery. You're not. You're just a cheap, parasitic piratical bastard.

Well I agree that it's stealing, But if you visit musicians websites it is common for them to offer free downloads of a couple of songs. And look at Creative Commons, opening up options for artists shows that a lot of them are not as "bust down your door with a swat team" type of people.

And looking at those differences shows how different they are in business practice.

I would prefer to pay Radiohead $90 for their deluxe box set that they made than $18 for a CD from a label.

 

[synapz]

and you don't think Sam is using force in sense of omission to profit off Bob's capital of developing the product?

I really don't see any use of force by Sam at all in this scenario.

 

[Banana]

I really don't see any use of force by Sam at all in this scenario.

Ok. Let's try this way.

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?


(Please do bear with me, I'm not trying to be a contarian; I just wanted to make sure I fully understand the issues involved)

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ok. Let's try this way.

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?


(Please do bear with me, I'm not trying to be a contarian; I just wanted to make sure I fully understand the issues involved)

hmm. So by your logic, if I take a picture of someone without the person's consent, I could be charged with kidnapping?

 

[Banana]

Well, no, since you can't manufacture a kid (at least not a replica of that kid you photographed). But this definitely fails if it was a copy of digital music, though.

Interestingly enough, consent is required to take a photograph at an event, as I understand it. Not that I'm arguing for/against the idea of asking for consent to be photographed- that's entirely different topic.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well, no, since you can't manufacture a kid (at least not a replica of that kid you photographed). But this definitely fails if it was a copy of digital music, though.

Interestingly enough, consent is required to take a photograph at an event, as I understand it. Not that I'm arguing for/against the idea of asking for consent to be photographed- that's entirely different topic.

That would really get in the way of my upskirting business lol

 

[synapz]

Ok. Let's try this way.

Bob makes a thingy, having invested his life's saving and considerable time into it. Sam steals it and sell it off for himself. That'd be theft, correct?

Now, if Sam had stolen the blueprint instead, we'd still call it theft, no?

Finally, if Sam merely made a copy of blueprint or a photograph of the thingy, isn't that still theft?


(Please do bear with me, I'm not trying to be a contarian; I just wanted to make sure I fully understand the issues involved)

I would say that if Sam breaks into Bob's house and photographs the blueprint, then he could be tried in civil court for loss of profits and criminal court for breaking-and-entering. But if Bob is walking around on the street with his blueprints in plain view and Sam photographs it and makes a profit with it, well, Bob is just being unwise and paying the price.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I would say that if Sam breaks into Bob's house and photographs the blueprint, then he could be tried in civil court for loss of profits and criminal court for breaking-and-entering. But if Bob is walking around on the street with his blueprints in plain view and Sam photographs it and makes a profit with it, well, Bob is just being unwise and paying the price.

Good case for trespassing

 

[Banana]

I would say that if Sam breaks into Bob's house and photographs the blueprint, then he could be tried in civil court for loss of profits and criminal court for breaking-and-entering. But if Bob is walking around on the street with his blueprints in plain view and Sam photographs it and makes a profit with it, well, Bob is just being unwise and paying the price.

We are in total agreement then; I had forgotten the point about needing to break and enter to make this crime. However, the act of copying doesn't in itself necessitate breaking and entering.

That said, I'm afraid I'm still stuck with the idea that there is an act of force involved in copying off another's invention. I tried to express it and failed with the painter analogy back there because the way I look at it, capital had to be invested in the invention, while copying it requires a different kind of capital and therefore can be substantially cheaper than the capital to develop a working prototype, so when someone copies an invention, they're essentially stealing the capital invested in developing that invention.

 

[SeanEdwards]

What natural law is Sam breaking when he sells Joe a hammer, which was invented by Bob? I see none. Unless Sam uses force against Bob to wrest from his mind the invention of the hammer, Sam has done no wrong. What I do see wrong is Bob enlisting the strong arm of the government to enforce a monopoly on an idea. Sam need not use force to accomplish his ends of manufacturing and selling a product, but Bob must use force to prevent Sam from manufacturing and selling a hammer.

Sam used force of theft to steal the product of Bob's intellect without compensation. Let's say it wasn't a hammer tha Bob invented, but a novel. Your argument is that Sam should be able to buy a copy of Bob's novel, and then reprint it and sell the same novel without compensating the author. Can you not understand how that is theft?

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

"oh no i've gone cross-eyed..."

good debate tho. I say that since it is not in the constitution, these laws should be left to the states. Kinduv a copout...but watev