Intellectual Property and Economic Prosperity: Friends or Foes?
One of the USPTO report’s most frequently discussed findings was that “IP-intensive” industries employ a lot of people: “Direct employment in the subset of most IP-intensive industries identified in this report amounted to 27.1 million jobs in 2010, while indirect activities associated with these industries provided an additional 12.9 million jobs throughout the economy in 2010, for a total of 40.0 million jobs, or 27.7 percent of all jobs in the economy.”
The correlation argument is not valid. Anyone who knows anything about property rights will see that their is a causation.
No one is going to agree with me here, in the land of Ayn Rand objective reasoned Libertarians because what we "practice" is not the "law" we ignore because it has not YET born consequence to us.
First, there is no such thing as "personal property", Intellectual or protected by patent since 1913. That is the year Americans became subject to Income Tax, which claims all wealth of its citizens right down to the metabolism of brain and muscle. The 16th Amendment of the Constitution states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration." Coincident with this, the Federal Reserve System was created on Christmas Eve 12-23-1913 ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch. 3.
In 1933 under Executive Order 6102 President Roosevelt forbad the ownership of gold. This was possible only when American citizens ceased to be "sovereign" as defined in the Declaration of Independence: in excerpt "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness---" Being born free, sovereign, and pursuing "happiness" (profit) we were sovereign because we 1) owned ourselves, gift of the Creator 2) possessed Life,Liberty, and PROPERTY. 3) Anything we expended of Life to"get", as Liberty possessing Sovereign citizens, was ours to keep. The cost of government was apportioned and assessed to our "happiness" according to enumerated census.
Executive Order 11110 was issued by U.S. President John F. Kennedy on June 4, 1963. Attempted to reestablish property ownership to Americans while gold ownership remained illegal. Silver Certificate (bank notes) money were abolished and taken out of circulation after the President was assassinated.
August 15, 1971 President Nixon took America off the gold standard and our money became backed ONLY by debt establishing the "mandrake mechanism" where fractional reserve banking causes 20:1 inflation and repayment of principle extinguishes currency (bank notes) by the lending / repayment cycle.
The FED Federal Reserve Bank system is a cartel of 12 regional banks who now own everything including human citizens. Lincoln abolished personal ownership of slaves, not governmental ownership of slaves. WHY DO WE GIVE A BLEEPING DAMN?
You should care because chattel slaves have no property rights. The FED cartel insinuated itself, as a private corporation, into the halls of government, with IRS enforcement FORCE AT THE POINT OF A GUN AND LITIGATION WITH INCARCERATION IN TAX COURT. This isn't just about money creation/debt/or economics. This means, the government, despite all other regulations / laws to the contrary, including the Constitution OWN YOUR MIND, YOUR BODY, YOUR TIME, YOUR LABOR, ANYTHING YOU CREATE AND INVENT OR PRODUCE.. President Jefferson's prophesy is realized. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of ALL THEIR PROPERTY until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
IP V.S. Patent Office are arguments to the contrary and in PRACTICE chattel tribute slaves are protected and there is an argument between the rights of creators and the economic benefit to the larger society as opposed to the inventor protected under USPTO patent protection.
So after this trip on a long and narrow road to a little house in the prairie, the bottom line is: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES AND EVERY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHO IS DAMAGING THE ECONOMY IS A MOOT ARGUMENT FOR RUMINATORS WHO HAVE NO CUD LEFT. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ruminat...
PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE THE MORAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME
sigh...
your last statement about IP vs Patent Office is a little convoluted. whenever I see "benefit to the larger society" I run the other way...can you clarify? oh and point for making phrase of the day on Euda's post
Patent Office Protection is an exclusive right to prevent anyone else from profiting from our creation. I also include Copywright.
Sorry for the convolution. IP unprotected is what Linux offers with open source. Windows XXX.XXX is patented and not open source.
Which benefits the (sarcasm) "Greater Society" more, stuff you have to compensate the creator to have, or stuff you get without cost?
Hope that makes it clearer?
The Linux kernel was developed by Linus Torvalds independently.
http://www.linfo.org/linus.html
--------
Consequently, Torvalds attempted to obtain a version of UNIX for his new computer. Fortunately (for the world), he could not find even a basic system for less than US$5,000. He also considered MINIX, a small clone of UNIX that was created by operating systems expert Andrew Tanenbaum in the Netherlands to teach UNIX to university students. However, although much more powerful than MS-DOS and designed to run on Intel x86 processors, MINIX still had some serious disadvantages. They included the facts that not all of the source code was made public, it lacked some of the features and performance of UNIX and there was a not-insignificant (although cheaper than for many other operating systems) licensing fee.
Source code is the version of software (e.g., an operating system or an application program) as it is originally written (i.e., typed into a computer) by a human using a programming language (such as assembly, BASIC, C or Java) and before it is compiled (i.e., converted by a compiler) into machine language, which the processor (but not humans) can understand directly. Having the source code is necessary in order to study or improve software. A highly skilled programmer such as Torvalds can easily become bored and frustrated with software for which the source code is not available.
Torvalds thus decided to create a new operating system from scratch that was based on both MINIX and UNIX. It is unlikely that he was fully aware of the tremendous amount of work that would be necessary, and it is even far less likely that he could have envisioned the effects that his decision would have both on his life and on the rest of the world. Because university education in Finland is free and there was little pressure to graduate within four years, Torvalds decided to take a break and devote his full attention to his project.
--------
Gates had become fabulously wealthy, whereas Torvalds was making close to nothing from his free software. He was subsisting only on an average programmer's salary, and he and his family were living in a modest duplex in an ordinary neighborhood. Actually, Torvalds was never really interested in accumulating wealth or power, and he has contended all along that what counts most for the best programmers is the joy of programming and being creative. In his own words, he did it all "just for fun." Nevertheless, he was subsequently rewarded with both wealth and power, and he has not been reluctant to admit that money has its advantages.
Torvalds' financial situation changed dramatically in 1999. Red Hat and VA Linux (now VA Software), both leading developers of Linux-based software packages for large enterprises, had presented him with stock options in gratitude for his creation. Torvalds suddenly became a millionaire when Red Hat went public, and his net worth temporarily soared to roughly $20 million when VA Linux went public later that year.
---------------
Linux use has grown rapidly not only in terms of the total number of installations but also in terms of the diversity of the systems on which it is operated. Particularly impressive has been its growing share in the market for servers, the centralized computers that power corporate networks and the Internet. Many industry experts are convinced that it is only a matter of just a few years before Linux replaces the proprietary UNIXs as the dominant operating system in the world's largest corporate data centers.
Equally impressive has been the growth at the opposite end of the applications spectrum, i.e., for use in embedded systems. These are single chips (or circuit boards) which contain simplified versions of Linux and which are incorporated into everything from mobile phones to industrial robots. Among the advantages of using Linux in embedded systems are portability (i.e., ability to run on almost any type of processor), flexibility (i.e., ease of configuring), low cost (i.e., no licensing fees) and the availability of efficient and low cost development tools.
----------------
What you got against trading value for value, or a person using his creation as he sees fit?
FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEREAFTER IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER INNOVATORS TO FURTHER DEVELOP AND EXPAND UPON.
I see no more purpose in the government granting patent and copyright protections than I see in the government recognizing marriages; if the society as a whole doesn't get to benefit from said protections/recognitions, then why waste time and bureaucracy on it? Just let inventors invent and protect their own intellectual property rights.
But if we're going to grant this limited protection, then by God we should get something for it. And that something is eventual access to the intellectual property.
I think Robbie's point is that your position on this may not be entirely objective, having a vested interest in patent creation.
Btw, how much did you charge the poor entrepreneur for your reassurance?
Xerox PARC
Apple then innovated and probably could not protect their innovations under patent law.
The following may be truth or speculation:
http://zurb.com/article/801/steve-jobs-a...
I am glad that Xerox Parc and Apple both had the vision and the financial incentive to innovate.
Are you including the lawyers they employ to make bogus harassment patent lawsuits, or the lawyers they employed to defend their own patent infringements?
"U.S. remains responsible for a vast amount of the innovation and creativity driving global prosperity – from the world’s most successful creative industries to smartphones to life-saving drugs. This success is due in large part to good institutions, chief among them economic freedom, political liberty, and the rule of law. As economic historians have pointed out, another of those institutions has always been a robust IP system that has secured property rights in innovative technology and creative works under the rule of law."
What is the GNU General Public License, but an intellectual common? Is anyone here familiar with that?
Actually, Benjamin Franklin had a similar idea. Were he alive today, he would set up a Free Hardware Foundation, to complement the Free Software Foundation. This on the theory that "information wants to be free."
If they were opposed to private property, as you try to pretend, they would have released the source code and not *licensed* it at all.
You & hubby make your living leeching off of inventors, and you accuse ME of not being objective?
If I enjoy making pies, and I give them away to people because I enjoy seeing people enjoy the pies I make, that doesn't make me anti-property, that makes me A) generous B) human. I *get* my reward, even though it's an intangible like 'feelings'.
If I enjoy teaching, and I teach people how to make pies, my payment is that enjoyment I feel in teaching. There's no need and should be no requirement that I demand money for the training I provide.
Value is relative, and I thought, based on the individual.
Honestly, if a group like this can reverse engineer a product as complex as Photoshop (e.g. GIMP), then the original product may no longer be as novel as people think. In this case SW is protected mainly by Copyrights, not patents, so reverse engineering is just fine.
Does anyone know of GNU getting government funding?
Separately, are you arguing that the software industry is a mess, and that is why GNU exists?
The main reason SW is not patented is because mathematics are not patentable as something not invented. Then there is this grey area for novel algorithms. Since the source code is not disclosed, the underling technology remains hidden, and most people just use copyrights for protection to avoid the challenge in this argument.
It has been suggested that I am delusional, but typically in reference to my thoughts on the attentions of a woman, or a physical feat I am bragging about.
All software can be converted to "math." ASCII codes, for example. All computers are only able to work with "math." or really voltage levels...or open and closed states. right?
I agree, a breakthrough of any kind should be patentable. I was just pointing out that in the present system, source code and executables are protected as trade secrets + copyrights.
Now if they were patented instead, the life of ip protection might be shorter and it would foster the innovation patents are supposed to engender in others, by extending the state of the art.
"Switches do not rewire a circuit, they are components that are part of a circuit. But a switching circuit in a computer means that the transistors change the binary states which they represent by the voltage differences across them. Logic circuits in computers operate with binary signals represented by voltages at the lower and upper range, with several elements employed to control each transistor. The states change with each increment of the clock, with a different state for each step of the program (at the machine language level). It is these voltage states that are "switched" from one logical configuration to another. They do not not "rewire the circuit". Whatever you are trying to say you aren't using the correct terminology."
IF you wanted the wiring to remain the same, there would be no use for a switch. hence "re-wired." The whole point of a switch is to open and close (the changes in voltages). sophistry
Couldn't make the premier either, it seems. Too bad. Is Kaila there? I would hope so.
the IP is ALWAYS the logic (how to), no matter what the underlying tech is. we are talking about the invention itself, not the IP. One is a property right. the other is the thing for which you have the right in. they are not the same. it's an easy mistake. I make it all the time, and get yelled at for. :)
An invention is a physical manifestation, and IP is the documentation of the idea, correct?
A "switching circuit" represents binary signals, not "rewiring" anything. The "switching" is from one combination of binary states to another. Different machines use different circuits and components that operate logically equivalently.
The changing states of individual transistors, which in turn and in combination represent the state of the machine at each step in a sequence, are a consequence of combinations of binary inputs that ultimately affect every physical component. They are are not "told what to do" by software, from which they are entirely decoupled in the layered software/hardware. The software has no 'knowledge' of any individual transistors, or whether transistors are used at all (though they usually are).
The bad metaphor of "rewiring a computer" is a simplistic fallacy substituting for the role of software written for a specific purpose sequentially directing the operation of a computer when it is read in and interpreted as combinations of input voltages. The IP is in the logic of the high level operations of the software and their intended purpose, but which must be implemented on some computer to direct the sequential states represented in whatever machine is used to process the input and produce the required output in a physical form -- changing a display, producing text or numerical results, signals controlling another device, etc. So it is also more than "just the logic".
You haven't addressed, or apparently understood, anything I wrote about the role of transistors in logic circuits and their complete separation from software. Software does not address the implementation of logic circuits.
Do you actually read what you write?
A logic circuit consists of transistors and many other elements in different combinations of sub-circuits such as flip flops that maintain a binary state through clock cycle. Logic circuits, or switching circuits, change the binary state. They do not rewire the circuit.
BTW how did you give yourself 374 points in one day?
And I'm not the one who keeps asserting that software is a way of "wiring an electronic circuit", speaking of irrational.
from math, which is used in physics or EE.
I see software as logic taken to an extreme level of
development, don't you? -- j
WTF. I took you for an O. perhaps I was wrong
I suspect these are the same motivations for the GNU contributors. Now Ayn would probably say that enjoyment is a benefit and there is an intangible quid-pro-quo involved, and she is probably right. However, getting paid wasn't necessary.
What is your perspective on this? BTW, I greatly enjoy and appreciate comments from you and your spouse. They are typically very clear, concise and flawlessly logical. However, on this subject they seem considerably more defensive, even though I think we are very closely aligned. Have you guys been bludgeoned on this subject?
Since people choose to live, they must eat. they must put a roof over their heads. I have nothing against an open source concept, but in reality, they are trying to push an agenda that all software should be freely exchanged. IT gives the impression that their "free" software is more virtuous than software which is licensed for sale. Ultimately, nothing is free, including their desire to freely give it. They use property rights enforcement the same as a paid developer. So clearly they see value in having the property right.
I sort of look at this as a technology baseline. The SW GNU offers is inferior to commercial versions, and probably always will be, but for simple word processing, spreadsheets and mundane image processing, it works well. It doesn't really compete with Abobe Photoshop or MS Word. It competes with Adobe Elements and MS Workshop (or whatever MS calls that junk now). These are offered to keep people in the MS camp or in Adobe's case to gain a little revenue from people who will not go straight to Photoshop for $495, but perhaps can be tempted to for more features.
Adobe could learn a lot from the MathWorks model (even easier to reverse engineer...but no one really does). MathWorks gives their SW away to education, and like crack, the graduating engineers, et al go right for it when they graduate. They have established a serious hold in mathematical SW.
It is interesting that the barrier to entry in SW is much lower to develop a product, but the market barrier to entry is much higher, since compatibility is so valuable.
Robert A. Heinlein did stone masonry for entertainment; he wrote SF for a living.
You didn't read the info link about Linus Torvalds, did you?
First, "they" are not monolithic, any more than Tea Partiers or Objectivists. Second, "they", such as Linus Torvalds promote the idea of free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
We are exchanging ideas here. If we had to charge money and threaten to sue over every comment quoted, there would be no exchange of ideas. The core of the GPL is that the source code be included, so that other creative people can build on it, and make something still better. It belies the myth that the initial creator of a work is all-powerful and infallible. Commercial software is just as bug-prone as open source, but, even those with the ability cannot fix it for their own use without the source code.
"But what is an artist in this world *but* a servant? A lacky for the rich and powerful? Before we can even begin to work to feed this craving of ours, we must find a patron. A rich man of affairs, or a merchant or a prince... or a pope. We must bow, fawn, kiss-hand, to be able to do the things we *must* do... or die. (laugh) we are harlots; always peddling beauty at the doorsteps of the mighty.
...
"You'll always be an artist; you have no choice." - Raphael to Michelangelo, "The Agony and the Ecstasy"
"Michelangelo make up your mind once and for all; do you want to finish that ceiling?"
"More than my life". - Madame de Medici and Michelangelo "the Agony and the Ecstasy"
Hackers are another kind of artist. There are some of us in this world in whom the lust to create, the need to create burns our souls to a cinder. There is no monetary recompense enough to sate that desire; no amount of money can compare to the reward of seeing the look of awe, admiration, even ecstasy in the eyes of others capable of appreciating the creation.
They are compelled by their own desires to do it, money notwithstanding.
I don't know who I pity more, the people so devoid of soul like you and db, who cannot know this burning desire, or the people like the character Salieri in "Amadeus", and myself, who feel the lust burning within us, but lack the ability and talent to give it voice and form, and can only weep in appreciation at those who can create.
All I know is that the world is a better place for ceiling of the Sistine chapel, and there is no amount of money on Earth that can adequately pay for the gift Michelangelo gave the world through his need to create in paint and stone.
I'm switching from Lightwave (which I've used for years) to Blender. Not because it's free, but because its workflow better suits me; because there are more resources out there for it, including tutorials and plug-ins. Because problems get fixed more quickly by people who encounter the same bugs and issues I do, but because they have the ability and access to the source, they can fix and improve, without waiting for Newtek to get a round tuit.
No, I don't oppose intellectual property. I just recognize that there's room in the world for both models.
I wax floors at night at Walmart in a job I've come to loathe but endure, to feed my body and keep a roof over my head; and to live on the least I can, to go days without sleep to try to write, to model, to animate, to program, something, anything to feed my need to create. I don't do it because want to make a better living, although I do. I do it because before I die I must create *something*. Even if nobody will pay me a brass nickel for it.
As the saying goes, "that's why they call it 'work'".
Linus Torvalds made his living otherwise while he created Linux.
Who should decide that they need to get paid? You? db? Obama?
No, only the creators are fit to determine what compensation, if any, they must have.
You have the cart before the horse.
I know, because evidently you and your husband value nothing except money, that it must be difficult for you to understand doing something for the joy of doing it (presuming either of you know what "joy" is).
The personal computer revolution got its start, and its impetus, NOT from money grubbing lawyers out to make a buck, but from hackers whose motivation and reward was not making a buck, but in exploring computer systems, in innovating and creating.
Some of them got very, very wealthy, which is just, but they would have done it anyway.
It seems to me that you and your husband are arguing against generosity, confusing it with altruism. And maybe on purpose.
It also occurs to me that your husband (and therefore you) only has a hammer, and so all issues resemble nails to him.
He's almost as one-issue as Maph.
Yes s/w is mainly protected by copyrights. However, patents can certainly apply. My guess is that when Adobe was founded the patent office had a strong policy against patents on software implemented invention, so that got ingrained in their culture. Either way their fundamental technology would no longer be subject to live patents.
I'm more interested in the competition between the two ideals for invention: Benjamin Franklin, who held all inventions in common, and Thomas Edison, who used the patent system to finance his research.
"if inventions are held in common, they tend to stagnate."
Then explain Blender and Linux.
Some people are actually motivated by other than dollar signs.
"Some people are actually motivated by other than dollar signs" having a socialist Utopian dream today H?
See my reply to your husband.
" having a socialist Utopian dream today H? "
No, khalling; simply recognizing that there are rewards in life that don't involve the rustle and clink of money. If I get off on giving happy meals to bums sitting on street corners... there's my reward, and a big fat f* you to anyone who criticizes me for doing what I find rewarding with my property, intellectual or otherwise.
It takes truly simple minds to disparage rewards that don't involve the exchange of monetary tokens.
The Franklin model is getting its first true test, in an era of instantaneous communication that makes such a test fair.
Why do so many objectivists have this blind spot to the fact that there are profits be gained by other than money?
I agree. If it were shown some hybrid system of slavery could create more wealth, I would be against it. I am glad that so far it seems liberty frees people to create prosperity. China is working hard to test that theory and see if they can have prosperity without liberty. Time will tell.
I used to work for a courier service... what intellectual property did they base it all on, exactly?
BTW how did you give yourself 374 points in one day?
You're incapable of admitting when you're wrong. But, anyone can tell. THAT is when you resort to ad hominem, as above.