I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We already tried the system you proposed. Before patent law existed, people who invented something new would jealously guard their knowledge to ward off competition from copycats. When they died, their knowledge died with them.

    As a result, even today we cannot reproduce the work of some old masters. For example, nobody knows how to make a new Stradivarius violin.

    Such a waste of human genius. Patents exist for good reason.

    • OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would argue that the problem wasn’t with the fact that IP didn’t exist. Patents were made to counteract a bigger problem without actually solving the reason for the problem (and in so creating bigger problems).

      The problem was that they personally gained more from that knowledge being hidden than being in the open. However if you have a system where it is more beneficial for that information being open and based on cooperation that wouldn’t be a problem. Think of the open source community, if you make a tool that people use it is far better for you to let the community help with fixing bugs and improving it than just working on it on your own.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There will always be people who do not expect to be compensated financially for the work for they put into their inventions. And there will always be people who do expect to be compensated financially.

        The latter often includes people who make tools that they don’t actually use. Unlike the open source community, they only make tools in order to sell them to others.

        With a patent system, society will benefit from the efforts of both types of people. Without one, they will benefit only from the former.

        Thus, patents maximize the rate of technological progress.

        • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only point is whether you can make a claim to it at all. Is it even possible to claim that every labour has a right to be paid? Or should the wage be related to the product of the work, which can then be rewarded accordingly? Or to put it in an example: Should we reward office workers according to their work or according to their performance? The answer of the social state is that we should reward the work, i.e. the effort, so that no one is disadvantaged on the basis of his or her ability or possibilities. As a libertarian, I tend towards the second: Equal end product - equal pay.

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If I want to pay Joe $X for their labor and Joe is willing to accept $X for their labor, then I don’t see why a libertarian bystander would object.

            If you interrupted us and said, “Sorry, you guys can’t do that. Joe must be paid according to a performance model I developed, or you’re not allowed to hire him”, then you are not a libertarian.

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Some people, like open source developers, are willing to work for free. Most people are not.

            Apple is coming out with a new iPhone this year. The vast majority of people who worked to produce the new iPhone would not have done so for free. Same is true of every other Apple product, all big studio movies, and nearly all AAA console games, CPUs, and GPUs. All of those things require significant capital investment (unlike most open source software), but none of those things would be profitable without IP protection. So none of them would exist without IP protection.

            That doesn’t mean a world without IP would completely lack new products. But it would lack easily copied products that require significant capital investment. So you would play only fan-made indie games and you would watch only self-funded low budget experimental films. You certainly would not get new versions of various consumer electronics to choose from every single year.

            For the vast majority of consumers, the benefits of IP protection are worth it.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You should also consider that trademarks (another type of IP) exist to protect consumers.

        Imagine trademark law were abolished. You go to the store to buy an Apple iPhone 14. When you get home, you realize that the Apple iPhone 14 box contains a flip phone with a sticker that says “Apple iPhone 14”.

        You bring it back to the store but they refuse to give your money back. You wanted a phone labeled “Apple iPhone 14”, and that’s what you got. Anyone can legally call their product “Apple iPhone 14” when trademarks are abolished.

        Maybe you’re thinking, “I’ll just shop at Best Buy, because I know I can trust them.” But without trademark law, nothing stops some rando from opening a store and naming it “Best Buy”. Now who do you trust?

        Ultimately, this means every purchase is going to take much longer, as you will need to fully inspect every product to avoid being ripped off. Every purchase will basically be like a Craigslist transaction. If that’s what a libertarian IP paradise is like, I prefer the current system.

        Trademarks make it possible for buyers to trust someone they haven’t met before.

        • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thats going the wrong way. Of course anybody can call itself Apple but can they verify it? If not why would I buy from them? Give me like a proof on a blockchain that you product was built in an original Apple factory and shipped here and that this shop actually holds the license from the “original” apple to sell stuff officially in their name. Also before I would buy anything I’d ask to see the product myself otherwise they can kiss my ass. The blockchain is just one example. There are plenty of ways technology enables us to mark the original as such. Also these technologies will evolve with time so in the end it’s just a matter of the consoomer caring or not.

    • rosenjcb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stradivarius violins were made over a course of 200 years by the Stradivari family. Antonio Stradivari in particular produced violins for over 75 years! I don’t think a 15 year patent would have been enough to give away their trade secrets. These were hand crafted art pieces, not mass produced items. The reality is that patent law extends all the way back to the Roman period and was mostly a legal system for emperors and kings to distribute monopolies to his favored subjects.

    • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So I did some research and it reinforces my suspicions. Of course, having no IP protection had many clear disadvantages. But this has not prevented the development of advanced civilizations and fundamental innovations. On the contrary. Through the open exchange of knowledge, things could be created that are far greater than a human or a company can handle. IP is a child of the Enlightenment, when ideas or something intangible began to be regarded as a structure of our intellect and thus as property, just like tangible things.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I never said that lack of IP will prevent innovation. It will, however, slow it down.

        The rate of technological progress accelerated considerably at the same time that IP protections were enacted.

        Gutenberg developed his printing press around 1440. The first copyright law was enacted in 1710.

        How many works of literature can you name that were published in the 270 years between 1440 and 1710? How many between 1710 and 1980?

        • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But is this still true in the days of AI and automation? What if not we humans but some neural networks will be the main researchers of tomorrow? I’m just thinking

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Copyright law has already foreseen that possibility. Only things created by humans are eligible for copyright, and there are already cases where copyright was denied for work generated by an AI.