[ExI] intellectual property again

[JOSHUA JOB]

> I lean toward the view, echoing Stephen Kinsella*, that intellectual property is not property at all. As such, it's not defensible via or consistent with libertarian property rights theory. (However, I would not use the charge of ideological unreliability against libertarians who take the contradictory position.)-Dan 
> ......http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/against-intellectual-property/
I read the article, and I still think that IP is a requirement, in fact I say it is the root of all property rights. Property is a result of men using their mind to create something in the world which did not exist before. All creations of new things in their mind is theirs to do with as they wish. Men have to think to live, and they have to control how they act and what they can think in order to properly think, so you control your thoughts and creations both mental and physical as a result.

A few things: 1. Facts about reality cannot be patented. The example from the article about the man learning their is oil on his neighbor's land through trespass and then spilling the beans to everyone is not a good example for this reason. The fact there is oil on Jed's land is a fact of reality. Regardless of whether or not Jed had told anyone, it is still just a fact, just as physical formulae are facts. Actually, Jed's plan to buy his neighbor's land strikes me as bordering on fraud, as there is an obviously important piece of information about their land that Jed knows and is withholding. It is akin to knowing that a certain drug can cause dangerous side effects and omitting that information when selling it to someone. Such a strategy is lying, which is a form of initiation of force against the other person (as you are divorcing their actions from reality intentionally).

2. Scarcity has nothing to do with it, nor does "first occupier." You have to create something to own it. Standing on some land does not make you create anything. You haven't changed it to some productive use, you haven't applied your mind to create some values from it. As a result you do not own it. If you build a fence, and start tilling the land, then you own the land, as you are using it for productive purpose, and are in the process of transforming it. If you pick an apple of a tree, it is yours, as it was not owned by anyone before, and now you are using it for a particular purpose (presumably to eat).

What is important here though is that if I come up with a new way of doing something, I can do anything I wish with it. I own that process (if it is genuinely new), and so can patent it and prevent others from copying my idea and benefiting from my idea, when I didn't want them to be able to use it. The key here is that it is essentially impossible to prove that you had no knowledge of my idea, so while you may be innocent of stealing my idea (and it was new to you), you have to assume it was likely a copy of my idea (as I owned it since it came from my mind).

Generally, ideas aren't patented or copyrighted, like in conversations, but you probably should cite the ideas of someone else if you employ them (out of respect). Often it simply isn't in the creator's interest to control the use of something. Jonas Salk gave away the polio vaccine for free, because he just wanted to wipe polio off the face of the Earth, and that was the fastest way to do it, as far as he was concerned. Just an example.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com