"Michael S. Lorrey" says:
> James Wetterau wrote:
...
> > James Swayze says:
> > > Timothy Bates wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As a disbeliever in patents, this article warmed my heart,
> > > > http://www.around.com/patent.html
> > >
> > > As a hopeful inventor can someone explain to me why patents are
> > > considered bad?
> > > In a free capitalist society shouldn't an individual profit from
> > > their hard won intellectual efforts?
> >
> > No. In a free capitalist society, people should profit from the free
> > exchange of goods or services with other individuals, or any other
> > freely entered profitable contract or dealing. By contrast, if you
> > obtain a patent, you prevent me, via a state granted monopoly on a
> > particular implementation of an idea, from using my own intelligence,
> > labor and industry to similarly profit.
>
> The problem is that it is pretty difficult for the second guy to prove
> he never had any input from the first.
How is that my problem? That does not justify using the machinery of
the state to prohibit me from using my own intelligence and labor as I
see fit. That's what your use of a patent to restrict me does.
Moreover, under what theory of rights do you obtain exclusive
ownership of a technology just because you were first? Only one in
which rights derive from state grants. We all routinely benefit from
civilization and nobody makes us pay. I'm typing in a house that has
central heating. I enjoy this but I haven't paid the inventor of
houses or furnaces. What a calamity!
This is a non-problem.
> Any moron can look at an
> invention and smack their head, saying, oh yeah I see how that
> works.
In what way does this justify the state's stepping in and assigning
ownership of a technology?
Deal freely with other people, or are you afraid to do so and have to
call in the nanny state to help?
> If> they go and start making their own without ever having actually bought
> the original device from the original inventor, are they really an
> inventor, or just a cheap shallow crook with no consideration for
> others?
Is it theft to learn from others' ideas?
Maybe the original inventor should have made the person in question
sign an NDA.
Nah, that would require the inventor to actually work hard to protect
this right. Better for the state to just give her a handout, right?
> > This is coercive, oppressive and destructive, as well as against
> > liberty.
>
> Sounds like the anarcho-socialist argument against property.
You are mistaken. The parallel is entirely in your head.
In this case it is you who are arguing for the omnipotent state to act
as the arbiter of property, and it is I who am arguing for free
trade. You are taking the socialist line here.
...
> > > Is intellectual property worth less because it springs
> > > sometimes so easily from the creative mind? ...
> >
> > No, make all the profits you want off your legitimate intellectual
> > property. (Hint -- if your so-called property derives from a grant
> > from the government, its legitimacy is highly questionable. In this
> > case, it's a government hand out.) I make profits from my
> > intellectual property -- I write computer programs, and help people
> integrate other peoples' software into their systems. These profits
> > do not depend on coercing others into not doing likewise. That's a
> > bullies' game, not fit for free women and men.
> >
>
> However patent protection makes sure that EVERY user of your invention
> pays his fair share,
The universal sign of the socialist argument! Let the government
decide what is "fair" and redistribute the wealth accordingly.
No thanks, I prefer free dealing.
> which is not the case currently with software,
> where you have between 20-50% piracy rates.
Does the existence of burglary justify the government deciding who
owns which houses and doling them out in arbitrary 17 year periods to
whoever can claim them first? Please take your statist schemes elsewhere.
> Those who pay for software
> licenses wind up paying for the pirates, feel gyped, and are more likely
> to commit piracy themselves as a result. They know they are getting
> shafted, but not by who they think they are...
...
I can protect my own property thank you. I don't need the nanny
state and its protection racket.
Regards,
James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:16 MDT