Intellectual Property

Playing devils advocate is always fun. :) Anywho. .. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VS REAL PROPERTY: ". .. Why is it immoral for me to use an idea without compensating the creator of it? It doesn't matter how much hard work they put into it. Plenty of people work long and hard on bad ideas and get nothing. .. " ---Believing as I do that morals are subjective, this is obviously a matter of my personal opinion. I think it's self-explanitory. The very way you've phrased your question answers itself. You're using someone elses property. You're argument that 'because they aren't losing anything makes it ok', is flawed. Would you steal someones car because it was fully insured? What's the difference? They'll get a rental until the insurance company organises a new car. They wouldn't actually LOSE anything, they might even gain a new car. .. It is still theft. ". .. Furthermore, if inventors can claim their ideas as property, then why do you not suggest that they retain this property indefinitely? Why should there be a time limit on copyrights and patents at all? Say I steal someone's property (real property). It doesn't matter if they've had it for a few days or a hundred years; it's theft either way. If ideas are property, why shouldn't they work this same way? If one can have property rights on ideas, then one must morally have complete property rights for them. .. " ---I agree. Patents and copyrights shouldn't have time limits on them. As long as the idea is actively being used the law should continue. COPYRIGHTS: ". .. What would happen if IP were abolished? The market would be revolutionized and would flourish. .. . .. I could just take the best writing from each area and combine it into one textbook. .. " ---I strongly disagree with the idea of legalising plagorism, which I basically what you're talking about. In our current system, you are not prevented from doing what you're talking about (compiling a text-book). You just can't do it without the right permissions. The idea of taking the best parts out of a bunch of books and putting them all into your own book which you then sell is aborant. Of course the system would flourish, but what part of it encourages people to be creative? Why would the authors write when you can just come along and sell their ideas and hard work? PATENTS: ". .. But, as he himself admits, patent laws delayed the industrial revolution! .. ." ---We can always look at things in retrospect and make judgements like this. .. ". .. And what would have happened if he had been able to patent his ideas? Would the world be a better place if Henry Ford had a patent on the idea of an assembly line (which, under current laws, would be possible)? Would innovation have increased had he been given a monopoly on the use of the assembly line? .. ." ---. .. and it is extremely easy to ask "what if" type questions. The only answer is: We don't know. Perhaps had Henry Ford patented the idea of an assembly line, he might have made an exponential amount of money more and used it to improve his ideas faster. We might be decades ahead in levels of production now. It is impossible to say. REFORM VS ABOLISH: ". .. How do you define significant, exactly? Who would have the burden of proof, the original inventor or the improver? .. ." ---I think in the situation I've talked about the improver would have the burden of proof. If they cannot prove that they have improved the original invention then clearly they have no right to it. ". .. And if you do allow exceptions for that situation, how could a court possibly distinguish from those that copied an invention and those that invented it simultaneously? .. ." ---Well in such as case, the logs of the inventor would have to be taken into account. If it was found that both inventors had came up with the idea at the exact same moment, they would have to share it. ". .. I also provided evidence that IP law has discouraged innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. .. " ---My observation is that depite IP laws, medicine and pharmaceuticals are constantly improving. ". .. hacks can get patents for extremely vague ideas, wait until someone uses the idea and becomes really successful, then sues them. .. " ---This I agree is a major problem with our current system. The laws should be reformed to prevent this. Patents should be very specific. Individuals like Paul Allen should not only be quickly dismissed, but punished for exploiting the system. . CONCLUSION: My opponent has made some very strong points about the problems within our current IP system and I'd like to thank him for giving me the opportunity to think more about the system with have. I however, don't think abolishing the laws all together is the answer. Much like abolishing any long standing law, the results would be completely unpredictable. The better solution would be another complete overhaul of the system to account for the problems of today, to protect peoples existing intellectual property but to encourage them to continue to improve on it and to also encourage other people to be innovative and bring fresh ideas to the table.