The more I think about it, the more the idea of “intellectual property” strikes me as totally innane. This is the product of the past few hundred years, taken to an extreme during the last century. The Native Americans who lived here before would probably laugh at the concept, knowing that such concepts are against the human nature of sharing. Of course, they would scoff at the idea of owning property, too, but that idea still has some life to it.
I predict that in 100 years, the concept that someone can own a thought or idea will be dead, replaced by a freely-sharing world. Heck, I may even live to see it. For all those people and corporations making a living locking up ideas, enjoy it while you can: it’s a phase of humanity which is rapidly coming to a close.
Do you got proof it’s coming to a close? I personally think that if I have an idea, why shouldn’t I profit it from that idea. Should someone else be able to make money off of my inspiration? I do the work and get the idea flushed out while people sit back and wait to see if I succeed or fail. Then they profit? No way, next thing you know you’ll want to setup a government board to regulate all industries and those businesses will have to get permission to adjust their prices. At least the trains will run on time…
I think you should profit from what you DO with an idea, but the idea itself is no longer yours once you share it with the world. If your work inspired from that idea is worthy, you will succeed. If not, others should be free to pick up where you left off.
The day ideas are no longer considered property is the day when everyone realizes how silly the whole concept is. I’m just predicting that that day will come.
And no, I’m against government regulation in all but a very few cases. But I don’t see how this relates to freedom of ideas.
(I had a hunch you’d jump into this one, Scott! ) 🙂
is that the little guy has no protection from large corporations profiting from their hard work. The ideas are free but the right to profit from them should be reserved for the people or companies that create the products based on those ideas. What if you had a great idea and were trying to make something from that idea and Microsoft and IBM were freely allowed (and don’t argue that they do it anyway because that is not germaine to the issue) to take your idea that you’ve put years of effort into and hugely profit. Meanwhile, you can’t even make a living. Since they have the means to research, develop, test and market that product faster than you can you’re left with fighting a giant. It can be done but it shouldn’t have to be done. Intellectual property rights are too important to just throw away. You commie.
But didn’t you mention earlier the danger of government regulation? Isn’t it government regulation when the government keeps one company from using another’s idea? And where do you draw the line? Every invention or idea is based on the work on others. Like Newton’s saying of “standing on the shoulders of giants,” all discoveries and ideas spring from those before. So, where do you draw the line? What makes someone’s idea solely their own?
I mean, some of the things that pass for so-called intellectual property should have never granted. The whole thing is a house of cards in my opinion and is doomed to fall. It’s just a matter of time.
People who come up with IP should not profit from them – only the people who execute the IP into the ‘open’ market. I guess that means inventors, programmers et al should not get paid since they are just coming up with ideas. Hmmm…
Pharmas who spend years and billions to develop new life-saving drugs, should be able to have this ripped off by anyone who has a manufacturing ability?
Totally flawed thought, but hey this is America, and you’re entitled to your own flawed thoughts – with legal recourse if someone steals it.
Of course, there is a beautiful island 91 miles south of Miami you may want to consider.
I’m not saying that IP producers should not profit from their inventions. I think that’s totally swell! Go for it, dude! But don’t claim that your One-Click-Ordering process is so earth-shakingly originial that it needs patent protection. This is a total farce, and there is a practically endless supply of examples at the patent office.
I treat pharmas just like I treat the airline industry, which I treat just like any other business. There is no God-given right that a corporation make a profit (not that God would recognize a corporation as an entity, but I digress). Pharma companies are mustering all their lobbying power they can muster in an effort to illegally extend their so-called patent rights.
The pharma didn’t produce its own atoms when formulating its drug. Genetically-altered crops are still crops – not secret formulas. I don’t believe companies should be granted patents for genetically-altered mice, either. Far too much credit is given for what really amounts to piggybacking on nature.
It’s a radical thought, I know. I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime. But I do predict that society will soon change so radically that this idea will not seem so far-fetched. It’s inevitable.
Being my blog, I am entitled to think radically. In fact, If I’m not being provocative I’m not doing my job.
Also, I am happy to sign my name to my arguments. That’s my name on the top of the page. By posting anonymously, your arguments will naturally carry less weight.
Sign up for an account. It only takes a minute.
I’m glad you sign your name but some people don’t want to sign up (you’ve espoused that thought from time to time) for an account or maybe they have but you haven’t given them access yet but they still wanted to post on this subject. Stop the holier than thou clap-trap. That’s not you, anyway.
Besides, being provacative just to be so is transparent. Fortunately, I don’t think you’re doing that in this case.
I can’t say that I totally agree with Mark but I do see where he’s coming from. Stupid lawsuits like the guy suing eBay for infringing on his patent that “presented a way for people to buy items over the Internet for a fixed price.” WTF? I think I’ll file a patent for “web sites that allow people to post their own opinions about things” and then sue jt.net, mt.net, and the wysiblog out of cyberspace. Geesh.
In a perfect utopia, Mark’s ideas are valid. Anyone who can improve on an idea is helping society as a whole, and therefore that society should not be restricting the sharing of ideas. Back in today’s capitalistic reality, though, the rules are much different, and Scott’s M$/IBM argument carries much more weight. If your reward for struggling to develop an idea is to have that idea usurped by a corporation and profited from while you see nothing in return, then you are not going to be wasting your time coming up with many new ideas, are you? There’s no economic incentive to do so. In effect, your choice as the little guy inventor is to innovate or starve.
I don’t know that the system needs to be abolished. That’s a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me. I do think that the rules need to be revamped in a way that redefines what is “patentable” and what is not. The USPTO has done a horrible job in keeping up with Internet-related patents, the results of which are stupid lawsuits like the eBay one mentioned above as well as the “1-Click” issue that Mark mentioned.
This won’t be resolved any time soon I’m afraid. In any event, kudos to you Mark for putting your “radical” ideas out there for us to read and kudos to ScottyG for expressing his rebuttal.
Enjoy times like these while you can before me and my patent sue both your arses off the Internet. 🙂
————————————–
the blizzog @ jamiegaines.com
The deal is that the patent laws need to be modified. That guys patent he used against eBay is ridiculous. The problem isn’t patents but how, when, where and why they’re handed out. Let’s solve that problem and thing might be a lot better.