Comments on: Intellectual property does not exist

By: CounterClckWise

CounterClckWise — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:26:07 +0000

Neil, thanks for the link to your intellectual property argument. I find it unconvincing. Very quickly here, and later I’ll post a link to a more substantial counterpoint.

It is true that people are willing to pay money for ideas but that does not mean they are conceding any rights to what goes on in their own minds (including reproducing ideas or using them to improve on others). Second, I don’t think demanding exclusivity to ideas is the only way to monetize them, as many companies are now proving.

Best regards to you.

By: stpeter

stpeter — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:10:33 +0000

Yum, cookies!

But seriously, ownership of ideas or information or patterns is a difficult issue. After long reflection I’ve concluded that such ownership is impossible, but I can see why smart, creative, liberty-minded folks like J. Neil Schulman have concluded otherwise. Further ammunition here: http://me.stpeter.im/essays/publicdomain.html and http://me.stpeter.im/essays/whatiscopyright.html

By: Sunni

Sunni — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:04:25 +0000

JPFO was—and I hope still is—selling two gun-shaped cookie cutters at Goody Guns. Nicely done, Mike.

By: Mr X from Planet X

Mr X from Planet X — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:03:31 +0000

eBay was sued because someone claimed the had a patent on the idea to have an online auction. The law should really be changed to protect actual implementation, but not ideas.

A company should also not be able to buy a patent in order to suppress it. Perhaps a company should have to show they are implementing a patent, and if they don’t bring that product to market within two years, it should be open to the public.

A company buying a patent to suppress a technology, and then the government protecting that patent, is an example of how government colludes with corporations, restricting innovation and the freedom of the general public.

By: J. Neil Schulman

J. Neil Schulman — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:05:14 +0000

Mike,

I answered your objections to ownership of information years ago in my article “Informational Property: Logorights” at http://www.pulpless.com/bp21samp/logorite.html

Neil

By: FURBjr

FURBjr — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:32:27 +0000

I think idea about infinitely replicabability is key to the whole subject of copyright. You may have a potato, and you may replicate said potato, presumably infinitely, but you have to produce that potato with your own green thumb. You can’t just replicate a potato with a click of a mouse. A potato is not an idea, but an physical entity. You can design a potato, and then the designs are an idea, which could be infinitely replicatable, and the design would be your idea, not your property.

By: Arto Bendiken

Arto Bendiken — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:54:52 +0000

I’ve included some useful anti-copyright resources at http://ar.to/copyright, particularly a link to The Promise of a Post-Copyright World.

Nice job on the access agreement, btw