If there are intellectual rights, analogous to real property rights, then how come there is a time limit on the right? If I own a bicycle, it does not have a time limit, after seventeen years it does not go "open-sourced." But ideas, under "intellectual" "property" "rights" there is a time limit on ownership. At some point, you do not own it anymore. This odd effect is brought about by having the legal theories underpinning the "rights" in separate categories. Real property rights are under common law, and "intellectual" "property" "rights" are under statutory law. The layman is confused by it all, defers to the lawyers, the lawyer knows how the scam is run.
Since "intellectual" "property" "rights" are merely a policy, just another rent-seeking scam promulgated under capitalism, it has winners and losers. For this reason, it is constantly being fiddled with, laws fought over, overthrown and reformed on a regular basis, fine-tuning the balance between the losers and the winners.
Now a distinction must be made among the three major "intellectual" "property" "rights". Copyright and patents, each a unique legal regime, both have a time limit. The other unique regime, trade marks, do not. They are issued into perpetuity, under the charming free market ideal of use it or lose it, so in this instance it seems an exception to my criticism.
But trade marks and logos fail initially for the same reason, they are violence-back ultimately. The best known logo in the ancient world was SPQR, now open-sourced. Since Coca Cola and Google are incorporated, they depend on state violence for compliance, not the good will of the community. All three forms of "intellectual" "property" "rights" suffer this catastrophic error.
And there is one more difference on trademarks as an "intellectual" "property" "right." A written book is tangible, a machine is tangible, but the trademark is strictly an image for the purpose of identifying a particular source of a good or service. Books and machines are will never be replaced by something better, making them irrelevant. But traceability, they is the QR code on the product or service going back to the producer, will within a decade make the trademark pointless. Trademarks will go undefended, although all the more abused, because the QR code will make communicate the value proposition far better and near zero cost. Defending the trademark will be as absurd as Canute commanding the waves.
Sometime I'll try to make a list where practicing free market ethics in spite of the regime is superior to submitting to the regime. Certainly eschewing "intellectual" "property" "rights" is a clear case where refusing to gain rights, or tactically open sourcing any rights, brings immediate and superior benefits than claiming the putative "intellectual" "property" "rights".
Another more complex area is to refuse to play the usury game. here again, the benefits are immediate.
I bet there are plenty or these, I'll reflect, but I'd appreciate examples.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Since "intellectual" "property" "rights" are merely a policy, just another rent-seeking scam promulgated under capitalism, it has winners and losers. For this reason, it is constantly being fiddled with, laws fought over, overthrown and reformed on a regular basis, fine-tuning the balance between the losers and the winners.
Now a distinction must be made among the three major "intellectual" "property" "rights". Copyright and patents, each a unique legal regime, both have a time limit. The other unique regime, trade marks, do not. They are issued into perpetuity, under the charming free market ideal of use it or lose it, so in this instance it seems an exception to my criticism.
But trade marks and logos fail initially for the same reason, they are violence-back ultimately. The best known logo in the ancient world was SPQR, now open-sourced. Since Coca Cola and Google are incorporated, they depend on state violence for compliance, not the good will of the community. All three forms of "intellectual" "property" "rights" suffer this catastrophic error.
And there is one more difference on trademarks as an "intellectual" "property" "right." A written book is tangible, a machine is tangible, but the trademark is strictly an image for the purpose of identifying a particular source of a good or service. Books and machines are will never be replaced by something better, making them irrelevant. But traceability, they is the QR code on the product or service going back to the producer, will within a decade make the trademark pointless. Trademarks will go undefended, although all the more abused, because the QR code will make communicate the value proposition far better and near zero cost. Defending the trademark will be as absurd as Canute commanding the waves.
Sometime I'll try to make a list where practicing free market ethics in spite of the regime is superior to submitting to the regime. Certainly eschewing "intellectual" "property" "rights" is a clear case where refusing to gain rights, or tactically open sourcing any rights, brings immediate and superior benefits than claiming the putative "intellectual" "property" "rights".
Another more complex area is to refuse to play the usury game. here again, the benefits are immediate.
I bet there are plenty or these, I'll reflect, but I'd appreciate examples.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1 comments:
"The one great principle of the law is to make business for itself."
Charles Dickens, from "Bleak House."
I think IPR laws benefit big corporations and lawyers more than anything. Big companies don't like competition, so hijacking IPR law legislation (by lobbying and political donations, etc.) is just one of many ways they use government to benefit themselves.
Most patent lawyers with half a brain come to realize that IPR laws are destructive and actually inhibit innovation, but they continue the patent fallacy anyway since they can make a good income from it.
Post a Comment