[ExI] New IP thread

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Tue Jul 20 09:23:35 UTC 2010


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ### The general meaning of efficiency is the degree of achievement of
>> goals, given available resources. Your paragraph above seems to be
>> bereft of meaning in our context.
>
> But what are the goals?  You have one set of goals, maybe I have
> another? Which are valid? Your position is that strong IP may create
> efficient outcomes (whatever "outcomes" means), but I am saying that
> while strong IP may create YOUR desirable outcomes, I say that overly
> strong IP causes loss of efficiency in other areas, not to mention
> absurd outcomes like patent "trolls" and weird lawsuits and takedowns
> of children's birthday videos.  These are not mythical outcomes, they
> are very real and happen on a daily basis in the US and other
> countries.
>
### The notion of efficiency does not pertain to the content of goals,
only to the degree to which they are satisfied. You may want to peruse
some of the common definitions of efficiency as used in economics. It
is not a part of our discussion (yet) to make normative statements
about the relative validity of goals espoused by diverse entities. To
understand our daily life, you first need to take many inferential
steps away from it, so as to return where you started with your eyes
wide open. At the elementary level we are on, simple exercises devoid
of emotional content are needed first, before tackling potentially
confusing issues.

I notice you persist in using emotional imagery. "Takedowns of
children's birthday videos" - what could be a better way to sabotage a
rational mind? I never progressed beyond superficialities until I
engaged in analytical exercises untainted by emotions. Neither will
you.

------------------------------
> Ignoring your insults, I would claim that getting a casual
> lay-understanding of a simple system does not help in fully analyzing
> complex systems. In engineering areas perhaps understanding basic
> mechanical principles leads to greater understanding, but complex
> socio-economic interactions challenge simple approaches - after all
> micro and macro economics are not taught together and use different
> principles to achieve their understandings.

### Are you saying you can understand complex systems without first
being able to analyze simple analogues? That you feel empowered to
make insightful statements about the real world without first taking
it apart in your mind?

-------------------------

> Well I'm glad you've come to a place of understanding with your piracy
> tendencies, but I was really talking about things like software
> patents on obvious things, over-reaching copyright (which originally
> was a balancing deal) and remix rights.  Never forget that patents and
> copyrights are NOT natural rights, and the government gives those
> rights to individuals (and companies) and takes on the enforcement
> arbitration in return for something.  That being the timely return of
> inventions, books, movies, etc to the public domain so that future
> generations can take the works of "the greats" and build on it.
>
### I do not recognize "natural rights" as a useful category. Rights
are efficient, or not, and that is what matters.

If a "thing" is obvious, it cannot be legally patented. If there is a
patent on an obvious invention, the patent itself goes against IP law.
In a previous post you explicitly came out against "strong IP" (which
I assume pertains to what I postulated in the initial post of this
thread), now you claim you are against patents that violate current
patent law, and some peripheral issues like copyright and remix
rights.

What is it then that you oppose?

Rafal

PS. Let me restate my postulates: In order to achieve maximum
efficiency, all thoughts should enjoy very high levels of protection
against unauthorized intrusions, such as overwriting, editing, and
copying. This also pertains to agreements between entities, which are
overt expressions of thoughts, and are binding on the entities. Based
on my analyses of both simple models and observations of actual
societies, a pluralist society which protects each individual's
thoughts is likely to be able to generate more numerous, diverse and
useful ideas, compared to societies that do not afford such
protections to thoughts. Current IP law is a partial embodiment of
this notion, despite being limited by technological and other
deficiencies.

By a high level of protection I mean, among others, unlimited in time
protection from any unauthorized copying whatsoever, with legal
recourse available to extract both restorative and punitive damages.
Obviously, such damages cannot be imposed on independent reinvention.

Is this what you are against?




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list