New Zealand bans some software patents • Hacker News Board

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#201

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 2:28 PM UTC

SEMW wrote: post #200

Zigurd wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Inalienable" is quite an idealistic and American word in this context. Nevertheless, the US federal constitution is written with some assumptions, and a "sense," That is, it is addressed to the government, from the people and the states, which predate the existence federal government, and which can undo the federal government through a constitutional convention. The ninth and tenth Amendments spell out the assumptio…

> The "property" part appears ... is a tendentious word added later, like "pro-life." Don't be silly. The word "property" in "intellectual property" is used in its legal sense: a particular and well-defined set of characteristics that a bundle of rights can have (such as being transferable to other entities, and binding the world). The definition comes from common law, and certainly predates your country's constituti…

"Whether they should be is a different question"

That's the exactly question we're discussing. The legal term "intellectual property rights" steal gravitas from more important (physical) "property rights", which are natural rights and are essential in a free society.

Your point is that "intellectual property" is a legal term. No one disagrees. The point of the people railing against the phrase "intellectual property" is that the phrase is misleading and that it should be replaced with something more apt. Perhaps you are missing that point?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#202

Post by Zigurd » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 3:48 PM UTC

SEMW wrote: post #200

Zigurd wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Inalienable" is quite an idealistic and American word in this context. Nevertheless, the US federal constitution is written with some assumptions, and a "sense," That is, it is addressed to the government, from the people and the states, which predate the existence federal government, and which can undo the federal government through a constitutional convention. The ninth and tenth Amendments spell out the assumptio…

> The "property" part appears ... is a tendentious word added later, like "pro-life." Don't be silly. The word "property" in "intellectual property" is used in its legal sense: a particular and well-defined set of characteristics that a bundle of rights can have (such as being transferable to other entities, and binding the world). The definition comes from common law, and certainly predates your country's constituti…

Is a government granted monopoly "property?" Is cancelling such a monopoly a "taking?"

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#203

Post by SEMW » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 4:17 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #201

SEMW wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "property" part appears ... is a tendentious word added later, like "pro-life." Don't be silly. The word "property" in "intellectual property" is used in its legal sense: a particular and well-defined set of characteristics that a bundle of rights can have (such as being transferable to other entities, and binding the world). The definition comes from common law, and certainly predates your country's constituti…

"Whether they should be is a different question" That's the exactly question we're discussing. The legal term "intellectual property rights" steal gravitas from more important (physical) "property rights", which are natural rights and are essential in a free society. Your point is that "intellectual property" is a legal term. No one disagrees. The point of the people railing against the phrase "intellectual property"…

> The point of the people railing against the phrase "intellectual property" is that the phrase is misleading

I venture you may have missed my point. The phrase isn't misleading, it's correct.

Having the word "property" in its name isn't what makes it a property right. It's a property right because it behaves as a property right (ownable, transferable, binds the world). "Replacing [the word 'property' in IP] with something more apt" is like insisting that you can't call mallards 'ducks' - they're still going to walk like a duck and quack like a duck.

When I said "Whether they should be is a different question", I meant 'should the right have this set of legal characteristics', not 'given that it has this set of characteristics, should it be called "property"'.

Whether the use of the word "steals gravitas" from physical property rights is neither here nor there. Law isn't poetry, it's programming. Renaming a class doesn't change what methods it has.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#204

Post by SEMW » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 4:35 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #202

SEMW wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "property" part appears ... is a tendentious word added later, like "pro-life." Don't be silly. The word "property" in "intellectual property" is used in its legal sense: a particular and well-defined set of characteristics that a bundle of rights can have (such as being transferable to other entities, and binding the world). The definition comes from common law, and certainly predates your country's constituti…

Is a government granted monopoly "property?" Is cancelling such a monopoly a "taking?"

> Is a government granted monopoly "property?"

Is a car red? Some cars are red, some aren't. Some red things are cars, some aren't.

Government-granted monopolies can create property rights, sure. Other property rights (even intangible property rights) exist that are neither government-granted nor monopolies - obvious example, a debt. And a government can grant a monopoly without creating a property right, e.g. by choosing to award all its rail contracts to a single company.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#205

Post by gwu78 » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 5:11 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #72

Software patents are an abomination. I could stomach copyright on software, because at least one is still permitted independent implementation and expression. I can't copy your code, but I can rewrite it. Software patents on the other hand put a fence around ideas themselves. You can't draw a cursor using XOR by implementing it yourself, period, for 20 years. The patent system is deeply broken, and it doesn't even st…

"It's a game only..."

What about governments who collect the fees?

For example, how much have software patents ("junk patents") contributed to the USPTO's balance sheet? Is this relevant? In this position, can the USPTO self-regulate? I ask this not rhetorically, but sincerely.

If the small countries that restrict software patents had the market size of the US, it would not surprise me if they allowed more unrestricted patenting of software. But China stands as a counterpoint to the idea that market size is the differentiator.

Perhaps it is the willingness of US consumers to pay higher prices. This enables patentees to pass the expenses of patent office fees, court fees and lawyer fees to the consumer (even when the patents granted were not practiced to make the product: they're "junk"!).

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#206

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 5:21 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #196

foobarbazqux wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell, the idea of natural rights is really popular with people who are into anarcho-capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#Conte... > Contemporary political philosophies continuing the liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, and include amongst their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, A…

My problem with "natural rights" is that they're a way to take one set of arbitrary priorities and elevate them to some sort of law of nature, without having to justify them on utilitarian grounds. You have a right to property but not a right to education. Why? Because the former is a "natural right." Its no different from resorting to "because the Bible says so." Its also used to undermine democratic consensus in th…

[deleted]

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#207

Post by foobarbazqux » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 5:42 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #199

foobarbazqux wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intellectual property laws are protections around concepts that existed previously. IP refers to trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and copyright. Trademarks protect brands and go back a very long way; primitives would use them to distinguish themselves from each other, farmers would mark sheep, etc. Patents are really protections on inventions. Inventions also go back a long way, although they were previously t…

What you are saying basically ignores the history of copyright law. Copyright was created not because society placed a high value on creative expression, but because of a desire by the government of England to censor printed material. Modern copyright was created when that system was abolished, not because of the plight of artists but because of the lobbying effort of publishers, who sought to restore the monopoly on…

Publishers represent artists and take a cut. Of course they want a monopoly, otherwise how can they pay royalties to artists? Walt Disney was an artist, and what we have now is Mickey Mouse copyright law.

I'm not saying that IP laws are amazing by any means. I'm saying they are attempts to protect things that we have always valued on a moral basis: invention, creation, branding, and secrecy / privacy.

It doesn't even matter what the intent of the people creating the laws is, what matters is in practice whether people feel the laws protect those things that they value. The majority of artists feel protected by copyright law.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#208

Post by foobarbazqux » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #196

foobarbazqux wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell, the idea of natural rights is really popular with people who are into anarcho-capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#Conte... > Contemporary political philosophies continuing the liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, and include amongst their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, A…

My problem with "natural rights" is that they're a way to take one set of arbitrary priorities and elevate them to some sort of law of nature, without having to justify them on utilitarian grounds. You have a right to property but not a right to education. Why? Because the former is a "natural right." Its no different from resorting to "because the Bible says so." Its also used to undermine democratic consensus in th…

Yeah, it often seems they're a disguise for moral absolutism. Some convenient rule system that you can latch on to and then use to decide if things are good or bad. Tax is the worst thing there is, for example.

But, natural rights are in the same category as human rights, and there are many human rights that I value despite their nonexistence as laws.

It seems to me that natural rights are often a covert argument for male supremacy over women and children. A man is stronger than a woman, therefore he has a natural right to dominate her. The same goes for children. A child has no right to anything from its parents, because if you must depend on someone else, you wouldn't be free to obtain it in the absence of other people.

But dependence is how we are born into the world. Education is given to us while we are in a state of dependence. Is it really only that educators have the right to educate? Perhaps, if you really don't believe in assigning rights on the basis of need.

In the libertarian mindset, it's almost as if the government represents one's parents, and the romanticized state of being alone in the wild represents freedom from one's parents. Actually I believe that it's next to impossible for anybody arguing for an extreme position like anarcho-capitalism in the typical cult-like manner that we see to be reasonable, because doing so would require making the connection from what they're proselytizing to their own lives and processing their own feelings about authority.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#209

Post by betterunix » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 6:18 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #207

betterunix wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying basically ignores the history of copyright law. Copyright was created not because society placed a high value on creative expression, but because of a desire by the government of England to censor printed material. Modern copyright was created when that system was abolished, not because of the plight of artists but because of the lobbying effort of publishers, who sought to restore the monopoly on…

Publishers represent artists and take a cut. Of course they want a monopoly, otherwise how can they pay royalties to artists? Walt Disney was an artist, and what we have now is Mickey Mouse copyright law. I'm not saying that IP laws are amazing by any means. I'm saying they are attempts to protect things that we have always valued on a moral basis: invention, creation, branding, and secrecy / privacy. It doesn't even…

Read the history of copyright -- the Star Chamber, the Stationer's company, and how publishers lobbied for copyrights (using authors as a convenient excuse). Seriously, you should look at the actual history of copyright law. It was not created for the sake of artists. It was not created for moral reasons. It was invented for purely political and business-motivated reasons, nothing more.

"The majority of artists feel protected by copyright law"

So what? The point of copyrights is not to protect artists. The point of copyrights, at least in the United States, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The question is not about what artists feel, but about whether the majority of people feel that copyrights are working in the best interests of society. I suspect that most people would not care one way or the other about copyright if you were to ask, because most people ignore copyrights.

I also have my doubts about the majority of artists feeling protected by copyright law. Most musicians, authors, actors, painters, etc. are not even paid enough to live on and have to take second jobs. Either they have truly mastered doublethink or copyright is not really providing those creative workers with as much protection as we are expected to believe. This is under the current copyright system, which features the longest terms in the history of American copyrights and some of the most expansive copyright law ever seen.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#210

Post by hacker789 » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 6:28 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #196

foobarbazqux wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell, the idea of natural rights is really popular with people who are into anarcho-capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#Conte... > Contemporary political philosophies continuing the liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, and include amongst their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, A…

My problem with "natural rights" is that they're a way to take one set of arbitrary priorities and elevate them to some sort of law of nature, without having to justify them on utilitarian grounds. You have a right to property but not a right to education. Why? Because the former is a "natural right." Its no different from resorting to "because the Bible says so." Its also used to undermine democratic consensus in th…

> You have a right to property but not a right to education.

I don't believe in "natural rights", nor do I believe concept has any real value. That said, you're misconstruing their argument.

Someone who believes in natural rights would say:

> You have a right to own property, but you aren't entitled to be given property. Similarly, you have the right to get an education, but you aren't entitled to be given an education.