Patents: Not Invented Here
As a writer who earns income from intellectual property laws, I do support the concept. However, I find contradictions and non-objective foundations and applications in current law as it stands. I seek a foundation and application both of which are consonant with empirical reality and are also logically consistent. Consider that dramatic fiction and computer chips have time-delimited property rights, but your home does not. I do not know all of the ramifications, but I note the fact.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/93...
Holding a patent is important to some investors, but not all in every case. It is a factor. Much invention and investment has been achieved outside of patents and copyrights. Computer software is a prime example.
Historically, waiting around for a patent almost cost the Wright Brothers their advantage. They finally hustled off to Paris to strut their stuff after Alberto Santos-Dumont already received the award from the IAF for his heavier-than-air craft. Then they got in to a losing battle with Glenn Curtiss over "wing warping." Dale Halling claims that their wing warping (bending down the tip of a wing with cables to allow a turn) was the same as Curtiss's aileron (where slats hinge from the trailing edges to create opposing drags, basically). The Wrights settled by buying Curtiss's firm; and of course, today, all aircraft except hang gliders use the Curtiss aileron, not the Wrights' wing warping.
More to the point, the significant invention which even the Wrights failed to address was the propeller. No one had understood how to build one. Everyone thought of ships in water and just tried canting a blade at an angle to push on the air. The Wrights empirically developed their propeller as a rotating wing. The propeller pulls the plane forward by the same process as the wings lift it.
That is how a helicopter and similar craft work. The Wrights had no patent on the propeller. Perhaps they should have... but that would have retarded the development of both the airplane: No one else would have been allowed to use a propellor or any device working on the same principle, such as a helicopter. (The rotors work on a different principle, but that would have had to be argued out in court, if either had been patented.)
And, finally, the Wrights were their own investors. Until they went public with a corporation, they used their own resources. (Samuel Langley of the Smithsonian put two planes in the Potomac with public money.) That is often the case.
2. Your argument about paintings and experience is really one of possession. If you leave your land and someone walks onto it, why is not theirs? The basis of property rights is NOT possession. That is an ancient feudal concept of property rights. The basis is CREATION. You ignore that.
3. "Practicable"-I assume you mean it was going to happen, inevitable that the horseless carriage would come along. In fact, it took thousands of inventions to go from the raw concept to the horseless carriage including differential, braking systems, steering systems...Your statement broad brushes thousands of significant advances with invention. This smacks of "you didn't build that."
Your claim of creation as the origin of property rights is correct. If you knit a scarf and I take it from you, my possessing it does not give me the right to it. That is obvious. But if I like yours and make one for myself, I do have a right to it. If I see you knitting with some special kind of needle and I understand what I see and make a set of my own, you still have yours; and I created mine. If you invent a computer chip, and I reverse engineer it, I have done the work. Frankly, that is beyond me - I buy my chips and thank the creators (actually more or less worship the ground they walk on). But the argument remains: you cannot prevent someone from knowing what they know.
That was the point about the painting. The owner did not create it. She bought it fair and square. Once it is out in the world, the perception of it cannot be undone. You cannot prevent people from knowing what they know. Ayn Rand made that argument about copyrights. Copyrights are on the form not the content. I believe that theory also should apply also to patents.
Second: I believe that like land, patents and copyrights are forever. When do you stop owning something? Can you bequeath your jewelry to your children? Why? You did not create the rubies, sapphires, and diamonds set in silver, gold, and platinum. Truly, I believe you should, can, and do pass your whatevers to whomever. That should apply to intellectual property also. It is forever.
"..as if not clearing your own books empowered you to steal from others..." I do not understand this statement
Both you and Dale have said that property rights cannot go on forever and that you can lose your right to property if you do not mix your labor with it. I disagree, as I said. Neither of you has actually offered a citation or even a scenario. Myself, hypothetically, I may want to buy 100 acres of wild lands and leave them to my grandchildren undisturbed as wild lands become increasingly scarce and valuable. And how is that different from leaving them an ounce of gold? And how that ounce of gold different from the rights to the books and articles that I wrote?
Just because something is in the law does not make it right. Traditions must be validated by an objective standard.
Dead people don't own property. What happens to that property when you die? Now the answers become practical and legal procedural dominates over pure philosophical issues. ex: you die: the stuff you owned is now un-owned. we could have a free for all, whomever claims it first, gets it. It's obvious why this causes problems. so we make up procedures for that. Lawyers talk about who has the "best rights" or "best title" to the property. Rarely, is it about an absolute. It's complex and has to be broken down into kinds of property and the bounds to those rights-as a way of practically enforcing those rights if for no other reason.
I do agree with you that if you die intestate, then, yes, problems of inheritance obtain. I have been mulling that over for several days or more. My model was the Greek myth of Baucis and Philemon. (It always makes me cry.) They died alone on their farm; no younger relations were there. Hence, I figured that at their passing, the bordering farms would move in to a new common border.
More complicated societies have more complicated rules. In the European Middle Ages, thinking about inheritance derived from the assumption that all land belonged to the king (local lord) unless otherwise provided for. And only certain people could inherit: you could not will your estate to your third niece. Then, the Great Medieval Fairs at Champagne brought new needs and previously unrecognized property such as market stalls could be inherited; and your will could name anybody. That was because the form of property did not meet existing laws. So, new laws were evolved. Part of that was _lawe marchaunt_ merchants' law, commercial private law.
So, in our society, if you die without a will, your estate goes into probate court to be settled. I think that in Florida, _all_ inheritances must be probated. Florida caters to the elderly. If you die with no one to inherit the farm, that is one thing. But I do not see the impact if your last will and testament leaves your intellectual property or your corporate bonds to competent heirs.
The will might be challenged by others and the court would have to divine your intentions absent you. But the structure remains: we can and do pass property to people who did nothing to earn it.
Apparently, you can print all the Mark Twain you want, but none of the Arthur Conan Doyle.
"In the EC, the entire work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle enjoys copyright protection until 31 December 2000. After that date, a number of characters created by the author will enjoy trademark protection.
In the US, the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 604 ) has extended the renewal term of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works among others for an additional 20 years. This means that all works published after December 31, 1922 are protected for 95 years following the date of publication. For further information see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c1...
The characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Professor Challenger, Brigadier Gerard and the Hound of the Baskervilles among others are trademarked by the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate.
Use of any character or any book not in the public domain for any purpose whatsoever is prohibited without a license from the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate." --
http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/lice...
As far as I am concerned, if the property is being tended, then someone else owns it.
"mixing with labor" was never intended to be a sociological argument. we update this for modern language use. More complicated than a quick comment.
Again, you want to combine all of these different types of rights and make comparisons. Not so simple, well, for a forum like this. For our purposes here, let's stick to the philosophical. You begin to lose me when you give specific examples and then follow those tangents.