
Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical? - aj
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100519/0404029486.shtml
======
drallison
See Laughlin, Robert B. (2008). The Crime of Reason: And the Closing of the
Scientific Mind. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465005079 for an interesting
discussion.

------
stretchwithme
good question. why should you lose the right to do something because someone
has filed a piece of paper?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>why should you lose the right to do something because someone has filed a
piece of paper?

Point of fact: not all intellectual property (eg. most copyright protection)
requires filing. That said:

You lose the right to do something that you were unable to do before because
you lacked the knowledge, as it's intellectual property, to perform the
work/invention in question. You are effectively immediately in no worse a
situation.

The person who has, by the "sweat of their brow", laboured to enlarge the
realm of knowledge is rewarded with a limited monopoly to encourage others to
progress the domain of knowledge. This then creates both an enlargement of the
public domain of knowledge, after the applied limits expire, and a motivation
to enlarge that pool of knowledge to all.

IMO the basic premise of intellectual property (as I expound above) is sound
and arguably moral.

The current implementations that follow on and have been corrupted by decades
of lobbying by high profile, heavyweight corporations are greatly lacking in
the respects which afford this premise it's moral standing - namely that the
creators themselves are often relatively ill-rewarded and that the public
domain is not receiving it's benefit (the payment in return for the monopoly
we, the public, grant).

~~~
stretchwithme
I don't agree that one is unable to do something before somebody files a
patent on something. you could have been doing the exact same for years but
treating it as a trade secret. of course, in that situation, you can keep
doing it in secret. And you could still figure out that solution yourself.

The collective is taking away the individual's rights to get some perceived
benefit. I don't think that's a moral act.

I believe in property rights and realize you can't have any sort of economy
without them. But is this property? If so, why do you only own it for a
limited time?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If you were doing it before and can prove it then you can render the patent
void. You can make submissions to the patent office if you want to be clear
that the patent won't be granted. Hence, something you're already doing can't
be stopped by patents (in theory, given a perfect system). To recapitulate the
collective is not taking away a right to do something you could do before.

It is property inasmuch as it is owned, bought and sold, licensed, mortgaged
as if it were property. Property is not immutably owned - bricks and mortar
can be retrieved for the public good (eg compulsory purchase; at least in
Europe).

The deal is that the right to the newly created/discovered intellectual
property is vested by power of the people to the individual as a reward for
their efforts and on the understanding that the people then later receive
unencumbered access. That is why a disclosure of an invention is required for
a patent to be granted and why (historically and optionally in the USA) a
registered copyright requires submission of a copy: the copy disclosure are
held to ensure they can be released at the end of the term.

As the pace of technology accelerates this naturally lends itself to shorter
terms of monopoly. Sadly the purpose of the law has been lost and longer terms
have been forced for private financial interests.

~~~
stretchwithme
To make the case for intellectual property, I'm not sure I would point to the
fact that physical property can be stolen from an individual by the group.

