An argument against IP

[avsp]

Current IP law is a non-doctrinaire compromise to allow inventors etc to benefit whilst still making their knowledge public.
In some circumstances (IIUC) failing to exploit ones own IP can cause the patent to lapse

Drawing inferences solely based on doctrinaire theoretical principals doesnt necessarily address the question of the assumed perceptions of reward/return for those developing new processes etc

OTOH ppl should do stuff not for the money but for the joy of doing it. Thus the removal of IP might mean much much less 'useless cr*p' made to be mindlessly consumed by legions of ppl seeking distraction from the angst that poor job satisfaction brings & whatever other disappointments.

current listening? YouTube - Spend, Spend, Spend - the Slits

Incidently drug companies who fail to excerise extreme diligence in testing their products deserve being charged punitive damages, ..., its to encourage the others etc

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Kytro

This is just speculation. There has always been commerce, invention, and innovation. There has not always been IP, so that argument is reasoned within an IP proteced framework.

Would invention and innovation be different, for sure. IP limits innovation by locking up and putting ideas out of the reach a large number of people.

At the point at which patents etc became more formalised & not just the result of courtly favour, (or whatever), there must have been this debate & some kind of possibly still discernible 'step change' in the rate of innovation , ..., or at least a change in behaviour where innovators could be less secret etc

I've no source myself, ..., perhaps i'll look later. I'm guessing its unlikely to be clear cut. Perhaps the change was not as discete as I suggest.

The example of Chinas growth being at least partly fueled by not paying IP right might in time provide us an example. How long before China starts truely innovating significantly & not just 'reverse engineering'?

I can remember similar, 'its just reverve engineering', accusations about Japan & electronic goods.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

That wouldn't promote free trade. Give them say 10 years of exclusivity for new inventions.

Zero protection of inventions/creations only leads to people less likely to invent and create. Full protection for life leads to suffocation of the market. Just by the nature of inventions and tinkerers, the item will be changed, improved and made better within a short time so the original protection is basically worthless.


How many people here own a 10 year old TV, Car, washing machine,etc ..... ?

Is there a real market for those old items to be protected ? of course not. But is there a market for a 1 year old invention ? YES.

It is not about how much innovation there is. It is about whether or not IP really exists. If it does, then, just like real property, it should never pass to the public domain.

If you think it should pass to the public domain, then you are admitting what it really is, simply a government granted monopoly, not property. And government granted monopolies are always less efficient then the market. Which means it lessens innovation, it does not increase it.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

This is just speculation. There has always been commerce, invention, and innovation.

not anywhere near the level of innovation in America and other western nations.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

It is not about how much innovation there is. It is about whether or not IP really exists. If it does, then, just like real property, it should never pass to the public domain.

Where did you get that from ?

IP is a govt grant to encourage captalism and the free market. It is a temp protection.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

not anywhere near the level of innovation in America and other western nations.

You do need to look at things in perspective, knowledge builds on knowledge to lay all innovation in modern times at the feet of IP laws really has no basis.

It isn't IP that has provided massive innovation but rather a better informed population.

Take at look at all the innovation China had before IP, rockets, seismology, the compass, the seed drill, creating artificial waterways, paddle boats, cartridge-based crossbows even restaurants and with delivery services.

There is no real evidence to prove IP creates a better environment for innovation, and obviously the more people have to work with more they can innovate.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Where did you get that from ?

IP is a govt grant to encourage captalism and the free market. It is a temp protection.

Which means it is a government granted monopoly. And, by its nature, government granted monopolies are less efficient then the free market. Which means it does not encourage capitalism or the free market as much as it would without it.

Regardless, to throw around the term IP, has the word "property" in it. If it is really "property", then there should not be a limit to its ownership. The words "intellectual property" are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Regardless, to throw around the term IP, has the word "property" in it. If it is really "property", then there should not be a limit to its ownership. The words "intellectual property" are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

IP is a non-tangible, near unlimited resource, property isn't and is cannot be used by any number of people at the same time.

The facts are the IP laws inflate the value of ideas.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Kytro

IP is a non-tangible, near unlimited resource, property isn't and is cannot be used by any number of people at the same time.

The facts are the IP laws inflate the value of ideas.

Exactly.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Which means it is a government granted monopoly. And, by its nature, government granted monopolies are less efficient then the free market. Which means it does not encourage capitalism or the free market as much as it would without it.

Except they arent true monopolies because once a product is out, everyone has the chance to redesign it.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Except they arent true monopolies because once a product is out, everyone has the chance to redesign it.

How does that lessen the fact that it is a monopoly?

If someone was given a monopoly on oranges, it would not lessen the fact that it is a monopoly, just because others can still sell other kinds of fruit.

Or, even if someone was given a monopoly on fruit production, they would still have to compete with other food groups.

Or, even if someone was given a monopoly on all food, they would still have to compete with other kinds of products. But they would still have a monopoly.

No one ever said monopolies do not have to compete.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

How does that lessen the fact that it is a monopoly?

It isnt a true monopoly.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It isnt a true monopoly.

Um, nobody can "redesign" it until the patent expires...so yea, it is a "true" monopoly.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Um, nobody can "redesign" it until the patent expires...so yea, it is a "true" monopoly.

YES THEY CAN. As long as the new design has enough differences, they can apply for their own patent.

[thomez]

There's No Such Thing As a Free Patent - Mises Institute

good read on patents

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

YES THEY CAN. As long as the new design has enough differences, they can apply for their own patent.

Look, if people cannot make the exact same product, then it is a "true" monopoly, plain and simple.

I have a question that seems like it might fit into this thread.
I would like to start making and selling infant slings. There are many different styles of slings. I'm sure most, if not all, are copyrighted. What I don't understand is how something like a sling (the basic shape of it, not the specifics that some sellers add) could be copyrighted anymore than the basic shape of a shirt or something like that?
If I were to do this, am I opening myself up to a potential liability? What if I don't use a specific pattern? Where can I find more information about this? Thanks!

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

I have a question that seems like it might fit into this thread.
I would like to start making and selling infant slings. There are many different styles of slings. I'm sure most, if not all, are copyrighted. What I don't understand is how something like a sling (the basic shape of it, not the specifics that some sellers add) could be copyrighted anymore than the basic shape of a shirt or something like that?
If I were to do this, am I opening myself up to a potential liability? What if I don't use a specific pattern? Where can I find more information about this? Thanks!

this would be an example of patent law slowing innovation - so many are fearful of a patent infringement or lawsuit, especially those without the financial means to defend themselves, that they do not work to innovate or invent

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

I have a question that seems like it might fit into this thread.
I would like to start making and selling infant slings. There are many different styles of slings. I'm sure most, if not all, are copyrighted. What I don't understand is how something like a sling (the basic shape of it, not the specifics that some sellers add) could be copyrighted anymore than the basic shape of a shirt or something like that?
If I were to do this, am I opening myself up to a potential liability? What if I don't use a specific pattern? Where can I find more information about this? Thanks!

Patent attorney.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Patent attorney.

Why bother with an attorney when I have LL?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Why bother with an attorney when I have LL?

because LL's opinion is find the best design, copy it copy the packaging then come here and cry when you get sued for copyright infringement.