Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

tuaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#41

Post by mikeyouse »

darkarmani wrote: post #34
mikeyouse wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there really people who feel like the government shouldn't enforce property rights? Aren't those just called anarchists?

You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? I don't see how having gov't create a right around "patents" (non-tangible "property") is any different than any other gov't regulation that libertarians rail against. (Taxes? Those are just GP "government property".)

So there is no such thing as intellectual property?

If Pfizer spends $10B over two decades to develop a drug, JohnDoe Co. can recreate it on day-1 in the market and compete against Pfizer without penalty?

Do people really want to live in that world?

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

darkarmani wrote: post #34
mikeyouse wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there really people who feel like the government shouldn't enforce property rights? Aren't those just called anarchists?

You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? I don't see how having gov't create a right around "patents" (non-tangible "property") is any different than any other gov't regulation that libertarians rail against. (Taxes? Those are just GP "government property".)

> You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets?

By "real property" are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over land (which is what the term actually means), or are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over tangible portable assets (which is "tangible personal property" rather than "real property", but frequently mistakenly referred to as "real property" by the kind of people that criticize "imaginary property"), and, in either case, how are these government-created exclusive rights different meaningfully different than government "interference" and "regulation" over "free markets"?

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #12
mikeyouse wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there really people who feel like the government shouldn't enforce property rights? Aren't those just called anarchists?

See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly?

> See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly?

All property rights are government-granted monopolies (including rights to real property and tangible personal property), whether or not they are also inherent, basic human rights.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#44

Post by darkarmani »

tzs wrote: post #37
darkarmani wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right. That's ridiculous. Real estate and personal property has natural scarcity, but for "IP" the gov't is enforcing scarcity to make it profitable. A fair comparison would be someone discovering an ocean and then "owning" al…

Why do you think scarcity should have anything to do with the vesting of property rights in something? Under most libertarian theories of property rights that I'm familiar with, property rights vest when something is made useful. For instance, property rights in unowned land vest when someone puts the land to productive use. If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much f…

> If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you?

Only if according to the same logic it can be said the excess food is no longer your property because it is no longer useful as it is rotting.

Why would anyone need your food if there is no scarcity? They could go claim some "unowned" food somewhere else. Just like they could "clone" your ideas without depriving you of your idea. Property rights wouldn't be a very big issue without the scarcity.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#45

Post by darkarmani »

mikeyouse wrote: post #41
darkarmani wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? I don't see how having gov't create a right around "patents" (non-tangible "property") is any different than any other gov't regulation that libertarians rail against. (Taxes? Those are just GP "government property".)

So there is no such thing as intellectual property? If Pfizer spends $10B over two decades to develop a drug, JohnDoe Co. can recreate it on day-1 in the market and compete against Pfizer without penalty? Do people really want to live in that world?

There is no such thing as IP until created by what people in other instances would call "gov't interference." I understand the trade-offs involved and I'm not actually arguing for no IP, but more about the fact that it is held sacred, but any time the gov't does anything else that is "bad."

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#46

Post by TallGuyShort »

notahacker wrote: post #27
TallGuyShort wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly?

All property is a government granted monopoly in the present system, although much of it would be accepted through social convention or defensible by private force in the absence of government. Copyright/patents would probably be defensible for the sufficiently powerful too...

Of course, the libertarian perspective is that the government's ability to grant those monopolies is granted by the people to whom that property belongs. The rights don't come from the government, the rights are just there. The government sees to it they are not infringed upon.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#47

Post by darkarmani »

dragonwriter wrote: post #42
darkarmani wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? I don't see how having gov't create a right around "patents" (non-tangible "property") is any different than any other gov't regulation that libertarians rail against. (Taxes? Those are just GP "government property".)

> You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets? By "real property" are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over land (which is what the term actually means), or are you referring to government-created exclusive rights over tangible portable assets (which is "tangible personal property" rather than "real property",…

I meant both. Land, improvements on the land, and any affixed items and also the opposite of fake.

I don't think those gov't created rights are any different than any other gov't regulation, which is why i put it in scare quotes. People worship those property rights created and enforced by the gov't, but call the same amount of "interference" in other areas as regulation.

Post reply on HN