abbott@aerospace.aero.org (08/08/90)
Brad Templeton writes: | Property ownership is a fundamental principle in our society, though some | may disagree with it. ... | But if you *do* | believe in property, then I argue that intellectual property is the truest | form of property there can be. The relationship between myself and my | real estate is a virtual one created by society and law. The relationship | between myself and my software is a real one that exists outside of society. | Society could crumble and my land would not be my land, but my thoughts would | still be mine. It seems to me that the legal ownership relation is a legal fiction no matter what is owned. So I don't buy this argument. (I think the distinction you are making is between legal ownership and something like personal investment. One could put a lot of work into, say, a garden in a public park and feel a sense of proprietorship over the garden, but that is not the same as legal ownership.) More importantly, I would argue against the notion of intellectual property at all. Although one can make laws that attempt to ascribe ownership to ideas, it is hard for me to understand that concept in the abstract: (1) If ideas can be owned, then what is the distinction usually made in patent circles between an idea that expresses a law of nature (presumably not patentable) and any other kind of idea? Can one really draw such a line? Any idea that can be realized in a physical device seems like a law of nature--at least in a very specific way. (2) Even if one wanted to assign ownership rights to an idea, how could it be done? It doesn't make sense to attempt to collect royalties every time someone thinks your idea. (Similarly it doesn't make sense to attempt to collect royalties every time someone hums a copyrighted song.) (3) If some ideas can be protected, why not all ideas? What about political analyses, economic theories, frameworks for literary or artistic criticism, management strategies (e.g., just-in-time inventories), etc. Don't the creators of those ideas deserve to benefit from their creations as much as the creators of other ideas? One argument for intellectual property rights is that without them innovation would fail to flourish. But we know this is not so. Look at science in general which has done quite well without much protection, and software in particular, which has also. One reason for this success without protection is that people like to invent whether or not their inventions make them wealthy. Generally, though, creators of ideas do benefit from their work. They gain recognition and develop a reputation. They are more in demand as a result of past good work. Most people find such recognition and the financial and emotional rewards that accompany it sufficiently motivating. The primary economic argument in favor of protecting intellectual property seems to be the apparent need to encourage capital investment in its development. Would a drug company spend the millions of dollars required to find a new drug if it couldn't protect the fruits of its investment? If you look at the software industry the answer appears to be "yes." The pressure to keep ahead of the competition forces such development whether or not it can be protected. On the other hand, I do believe that one should be able to protect one's (physical) creations. But that protection can be done contractually. One can refuse to sell a copy of one's software unless the buyer agrees not to copy it for a third party. This sort of protection leads into many difficult issues, but I would hope that the notion of intellectual property could be avoided. -- Russ Abbott
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/09/90)
I say that intellectual property is the truest form of property from a philosophical standpoint, not a legal one. The legal system does not quite recognize this yet. Legal ownership is of course a construct of society. But my relationship to my creations and my labour is real. "Joe built that gadget, it is Joe's gadget." is a true statement regardless of the existence of any other people or any society or law. "That is Joe's land" hasn't got nearly that strength. What is valuable, to us, about any material thing, other than the most primative foods and freely found raw materials? It is the human creativity and labour that went into it, not the basic constituents. A car is more valuable than a pile of metal. A car made by good manufacturing methods is more valuable than one shoddily made, and a car of good design is yet more valuable. The value lies not in the pile of metal, but in the skilled labour and the design. This is true in just about everything. So in fact, in the case of a piece of physical property that we value, what we *really* value is the combination of intellectual property and labour in it. If not, mind if I trade your car for an equivalent hunk of scrap metal? There are some special exceptions, such as real estate, but by and large this is the rule. You own your own body -- that's the first ethic of a free society. You own your labour and your thoughts. Nothing is more "yours." Expanded into law, this says that intellectual property should be the strongest form of property. BUT: It is important to remember that while you own your own thoughts and creations, so do other people own theirs. Even if they are identical. The law has trouble dealing with that. Morally, this is how it should be. In the law, it's tougher. Most of the problems people have with IP law are actually these problems of enforcement, or so I feel. I find no problem in identifying those intellectual creations which should belong to a person. Some people say, "how can you own an idea?" I say, "how *can't* you own it?" But that applies to everybody. In forming the law, people have already seen that (with the concept of copyright) some things are very clear. A novel or long piece of software are clearly associated with their creator. The simpler the thing, the tougher the decision gets. When it comes to patent, some express concern that people might patent "laws of nature." I find little ambiguity. It is clear that F = ma is a law of nature, it is equally clear that complex algorithms that nobody ever thought of before are not. Mathematics itself is a human construct. Laws of nature can be expressed within mathematics, but mathematics itself is no law of nature. This is not an easy problem, but I believe it can be codified reasonably well with time. We're really only starting now. m -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
abbott@aerospace.aero.org (08/10/90)
Brad Templeton writes: | I say that intellectual property is the truest form of property from | a philosophical standpoint, not a legal one. What do you mean by "property from a philosophical standpoint?" | ... | Legal ownership is of course a construct of society. But my relationship | to my creations and my labour is real. "Joe built that gadget, it is | Joe's gadget." is a true statement regardless of the existence of any other | people or any society or law. "That is Joe's land" hasn't got nearly that | strength. If you are talking about recognition, why not just say so? Why muddle the issue by talking about property? I agree that recognition is important; plagiarism is considered one of the worst academic crimes. | ... | When it comes to patent[s], some express concern that people might patent | "laws of nature." I find little ambiguity. It is clear that F = ma is | a law of nature, it is equally clear that complex algorithms that nobody | ever thought of before are not. I'm afraid its not all that clear to me. As you say: | Mathematics itself is a human construct. Laws of nature can be | expressed within mathematics, but mathematics itself is no law of | nature. Besides, F=mA isn't really a law of nature; its a Newtonian approximation (I believe). So F=mA is just the expression of an observation that has a relatively broad range of applicability. On the other hand, bubble sort always works. So why isn't it a law of nature? Whenever the sequence of operations specified by bubble sort occurs, the result is a sorted list. -- Russ Abbott
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/10/90)
In article <80565@aerospace.AERO.ORG> abbott@aerospace.aero.org () writes: > >Brad Templeton writes: > >| I say that intellectual property is the truest form of property from >| a philosophical standpoint, not a legal one. > >What do you mean by "property from a philosophical standpoint?" As I admitted, ownership is a legal construct. However, in designing our laws, we usually draw upon philosophical underpinnings. These are varied. Some would use a strictly utilitarian system, saying that patents exist only to encourage disclosure by bribing the inventor with a temporary monopoly. I think that is one reason for patents, but many also feel that there is something "right" about the inventor being rewarded. In designing a law of property, we let people called owners control what we call property. For control is what ownership means. We draw upon several ethics for this. The utilitarian is just one. But, as Yoda said, there is another. It is based on the concept that ownership should derive from creation -- that you own the results of your labours. Some say that you should own some of these results but not others. The area of question is those results which are not in themselves manipulations of matter. I feel that's wrong, for it is creative work that is the most valuable thing in society -- that's been proven time and again. People object to its ownership for a couple of reasons. a) It is hard to quantify. While it's easy to see what "my car" is, it's harder to see what "my invention" is -- at least for many. b) The result of strict physical labour is hard to copy -- it usually requires the same labour over again. IP is often trivial to copy, and worst of all, it does not seem (on the surface) to hurt the creator when you do it. (Once you realize that ownership is control, not posession, you see past this, but many don't) c) It raises the sticky question of independent invention. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
abbott@aerospace.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug10.043721.2081@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) suggests: > [O]wnership should derive from creation -- ... you [should] own the > results of your labours. But you give no argument in support of this position other than that that is the way you and some others think it should be. I and some others don't think it should be that way. It seems to me that we are going around in circles. As I've said before, I believe that recognition of creativity is important (and perhaps others wouldn't agree with me about that), but I don't believe that ownership is. Does it just come down to a difference of preferences? I've given reasons why I don't think the concept of ownership (or legal control if you prefer) should apply to all products of human creative activity. You haven't given reasons why you think it should (other than that you do think so), and you haven't dealt with my arguments about why it shouldn't. You just keep repeated your assertion that you believe creation should imply ownership/control. Perhaps there just isn't any more to say. -- Russ Abbott
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/11/90)
Well, often when it comes to primative philosophical elements like this, things are reduced to merely what people like. But not entirely. It is largely a matter of personal choice when one decides what basic philosophy should underlie the law. But it can still be debated to a degree. I have suggested that the basis for property should be, in the simplest terms, "I created/built/made it, it is mine." This is then tempered by the expediencies of trying to make a legal system. I believe this is largely the way our legal system works. By and large creation *is* the source of property in our society. (Things like "first use" of real estate also exist, but they are more arbitrary.) The exceptions to the rule that the law defines usually come from areas that are either new (in the case of software law, for example) or just plain hard to define. (in the case of software law, for example :-) "Hard to define" comes up in particular when there is conflict. This conflict comes from the fact that two people can easily *posess* a piece of I.P., while only one is the creator. Even worse, *both* can be the creator. If everybody were honest and true, this would not be a problem. But ... the real world isn't that way. So while you can come up with reasons why IP doesn't qualify for the same status, I am open to hearing what other people feel is the simple basis of property. In particular, show me a basis for property that excludes IP for physical reasons, rather than the difficulty of definition described above. "I don't thing somebody should own something you do in your head" is not enough. (Well, it's enough, but it can't be used in debate.) -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
abbott@aerospace.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott) (08/13/90)
In article <1990Aug11.040632.21692@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >... I have suggested that the basis for property should be, in the simplest >terms, "I created/built/made it, it is mine." ... > >I believe this is largely the way our legal system works. By and large >creation *is* the source of property in our society. I disagree on two counts. (1) Very little of what is considered owned was created by the owner. On the contrary, most of what is consiered owned was not created by the owner. For the most part most of what is owned was purchased, and much (if not most) of the money (or other media of exchange) for buying things was received as a result of selling one's labor, i.e., performing a service. Of course there is also inheritence, winning the lottery, legalized stealing, selling things that one owns, etc., none of which involves creation. Of course one can create something and sell it or provide stewardship in the creation of something (as in farming). But for the most part, creation plays little part in the ownership of most things in society. If you consider manufactured goods, a prospectively good example for the creation-means-ownership position, the component parts were generally purchased, and the manufacturer performed the service of putting them together. (E.g., consider a manufacturer of clothing or breakfast cereal.) Would you argue that an assembly line is a creative agent? I doubt that I would. Yet most things that are owned as a result of production are a result of such a mechanical process. It seems to me that the manufacturer owned the component parts before they were assembled and he owns the assembled element afterwards, but creativity was not involved. If the assembled element is more valuable that the component parts, it is the assembly process that has provided some value-added. But creativity needn't (and usually doesn't) play a part in that value added. In addition, a manfuctured product is not owned because the manufacturer built it, it is owned because the pieces were owned ahead of time. If you built something out of stolen components, you would not own the result. In fact, you would not even be entitled to ownership of whatver value added your work provided; the original owner would. (2) Very little of what is created is considered owned by the creator. As I've pointed out before, hardly anyone thinks people own their ideas. (You may be an exception.) Did you ever hear of a scientist, political analyst, etc. say about an idea, that it was his and that no one else could use it? Of course not because no one would take him seriously. >... I am open to hearing what other people feel is the simple >basis of property. I would be interested in that also. I wonder whether the notion of ownership is a primitive or if there is something more primitive on which it can be based. I don't know what the philosophical status of the notion of ownership is. -- Russ Abbott
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/15/90)
Of course most people didn't create what they own. But they almost always traded something for it, namely money, which they (in theory) earned. And they earned it in exchange for labour or creative work. (I am including labour here.) There are other examples, most of them centered around land, which you get to own without creating. And a few around luck, like lotteries. But by and large the way the system is supposed to work is that ownership is derived from creation/labour, and of course ownership gets traded. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
abbott@aerospace.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott) (08/15/90)
In article <1990Aug14.172413.10447@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >... >[B]y and large the way the system is supposed to work is that ownership >is derived from creation/labour, and of course ownership gets traded. Even though you have broadened your claim that ownership is derived from creation to the claim that it is derived from labor generally, I'm afraid I still can't agree with you. Most typically ownership is *traded* for labor not *derived* from it. I trade you my ownership of some money for your services; you don't derive your ownership of that money from your labor. You might argue that you "own" the services that you provide before providing them. But I'm not sure what it means to say that you own a service that you haven't yet provided other than that you have the right to chose not to provide it. I'll certainly grant you that. Of course there is the question of how ownership starts in the first place if all one can do is trade it. I guess that gets back to issues of value-added and stewardship. How is it decided who owns land? (It is said that all wealth derives from land.) Given that someone does, that person is generally granted ownership of the stuff that grows on the land, etc. In general, if one is creative about adding value to things that one owns, then one's wealth increases--as does that of society. But none of this says to me that ownership is derived from creativity or labor. I would agree, though, that the *value* of what one owns may be effected by one's creativity or by the amount of labor one puts into it. Perhaps that is the notion that you are after. I'd certainly agree that creativity and labor often create wealth. I'd also agree that a person exercising creativity or performing labor typically increases his or her wealth. If you prefer, one can say that as a consequence of performing some labor, a person typically "owns" some additional wealth--which is often in the form of money. That's one of the nice things about using money as a medium of exchange of wealth. But in most cases this happens only if one either adds value to something one already owns or if one agrees beforehand to be paid for one's labor. The labor or creation doesn't create new ownership-- although it may increase the value of something already owned as I said above. To summarize, I agree that labor and creation typically increase the wealth of the person performing them. I suppose that is the work ethic that we have all grown up to revere. -- Russ Abbott
gumby@Cygnus.COM (David Vinayak Wallace) (08/15/90)
Date: 14 Aug 90 17:24:13 GMT From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) But by and large the way the system is supposed to work is that ownership is derived from creation/labour, and of course ownership gets traded. People often call Stallman a Communist, but this is the first time I've ever heard Marx's labour theory of value cited as a defense of the "intellectual property" laws. Unfortunately the synergism that capitalism provides is impeded by the IP laws as they carrently are evolving. How ironic if it turns out that Free Software is the capitalist tool of the 90's!
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/15/90)
One need not be a marxist to agree that labour has value, and that thus labour and its results are property. (Property of the labourer) One can still believe, as I do, that the value of the labour is defined to be how much people are willing to pay for it -- which is the non-marxist value system. That labour is the source of value does not make it define the quantity of value. The market still does that. I'm talking about the definition of property. And Marx said that property is theft. When it comes to I.P., Richard agrees with him. The market has shown that creative thought (the source of I.P.) is the most valuable property there is. Nobody ever got rich at unskilled labour. All the really rich people in the world got rich by selling their ideas and skills. (The word "selling" is used broadly here.) More evidence that I.P. is the truest form of property. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/15/90)
In article <80981@aerospace.AERO.ORG> abbott@antares.UUCP (Russell J. Abbott) writes: >To summarize, I agree that labor and creation typically increase the >wealth of the person performing them. I suppose that is the work ethic >that we have all grown up to revere. But what is "wealth" (non-spiritual) but the ownership of property? To say that wealth is created through labour and creativity is to say that property dervives from these things. Indeed creative work, as I said in a previous posting, is the most valuable thing there is in the world. Some forms of creative work you can easily guarantee you'll get paid for -- others you can't because there is either no protection or people simply ignore the protective laws (piracy). But this is a matter of law, not of defining philosophy. I have yet to see any other suggestions about sources of property other than creation, other than the Utilitarian ("We have the concept of property because we benefit as a group from it.") That latter definition would be fine if we were all Utilitarians, but we are not, nor, it seems, do people wish that ethic to be the basis of law. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473