[hyfe]

Originally Posted by queball

When I'm defending a "neo-liberal" position I maintain that rights should be arranged so as to maximise individual liberty (sort of freedom + prosperity as I see it). Patents are not particularly coersive, any more than land rights. They're a recognition of rights like any other, with apparatus to define those rights, just as in land rights. I certainly don't think the government should hold IP. How is this inconsistent?

Property rights pertain to physical items. Intellectual property restricts what you are allowed to do in your own private home. Surely you must see a difference?

Without patents, the only financial incentive to do research is that it increases the value of capital you already own; with patents, research has value by itself. The establishment would win either way.

Without patents, the only financial gain by research is improving your own products yes. However, at the moment the wast majority of groundwork and basic research is done at publically funded universities. General research still doesn't pay itself even with patents, so as it stands now, it is still up to the government to ensure that ground research happens. Patents merely enables oppurtinistic companies to build upon and monopolize the public research we all paid for.

Being a computer geek, you must have noticed how just about every relevant paper and all the major research in computer science was done during the 60-70-early 80's before the 'applied research'-doctrine entered universities? Commercial research is nothing but gradual improvements and patents are extremely unsuited to this environment.

That rich people own capital doesn't mean that capital is an arbitrary whim of the bourgeoisie; that (often publically owned) companies hold lots of patents is even less of a reason to be cynical of patents.

As I see it, it is another step in the 'capital breed capital' ladder enabling those who have to ensure that they keep on having. (since I'm on a tangent now anyways: if inheritance was disallowed, capitalism would make a damn lot more of sense)

What do you believe is the origin and justification of property rights? Do you go in for anything like "homesteading"?

Intellectual Property is a bullshit term, and an entirely new one at that. Physical property is tangible, and you are free to do whatever you want with that property. "Intellectual property" (as in patents) is not tangible and lumping it together with physical property is just plain wrong.

No, but you should allow driving even though it puts others at risk, etc. We could declare personal possessions as fair game for robbers but then no-one would carry anything around except with private defence, like in Somalia or something.

Yes. Exactly. The driving example is good.

Running over people still isn't allowed is it?

Nothing to do with the state FYI.

Am I competly wrong? I thought there actually were limitations on how one could apply patents. If not, sorry.

The factories are property though, and can be hoarded anti-competitively. Just pointing out that patents rarely "bar" anything, and when they do, it's the same situation as other property.

Yes, however the factories are worthless unless they produce something somebody actually wants. As such, they are still bound by the market. And ff there is a market for a product, nobody is stopping someone else from building more factories.

Intellectual property however, is property generated by the state, given out to whoever asks correctly, and is as such not initially based on market pressure. That they can be traded afterwards is of little consquence. If the government started giving outl 'the right to have a child' or 'the right to jump on your left foot' they could probably be sold too. That still wouldn't make it a good idea.