Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Yeah I realize that. In fact, I made the same exact point earlier in the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
How are we supposed to draw the line when we are talking about ideas? Ideas are not scarce like tangible property is. If I create a song, and someone copies it, they have not taken anything from me. I still have my song. Knowing this, how is it possible to consider an idea property? By making ideas property you are creating scarcity where there was once infinity. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that this is a bad thing.

“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

-Thomas Jefferson – First US Patent Examiner


[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to have to do some more reading on this before I formally take a position.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Here's what I will grant the proponents of intellectual property rights: It just feels wrong that I could work and slave over a novel for 10 years, and then you can just "take" it, print it, and sell it. However, I have been unable to turn that into a justification for IP, any more than I can accept the socialist's feeling that it is wrong that people should have to pay for their own health care (for example). Furthermore, because we've had IP laws for quite some time now, the concept is ingrained in our culture. IP laws actually create a kind of economic scarcity of ideas that would not otherwise exist. This leads to ever more vigorous application and extension of those laws. I can't say that people would feel "robbed" if culturally they did not have the expectation of IP protection.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights exist to prevent and resolve conflicts over scarce resources. Ideas are not scarce. My "taking" of "your" idea does not prevent you from using that idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects creations. Patents protect ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
A "copyright," an exclusive right to copy, implies that *I* cannot take *my* blank pages and *my* pen and write *your* words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. You can do that all you want. You just can't distribute it.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Technically speaking, the mere act of copying is a violation of copyright. (See 17 USC § 106). In the real world, no one is going to go after a person who is merely copying (without distribution).

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects creations. Patents protect ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no difference between the two. In either case what is being protected is a pattern, and arrangement of symbols, in short, an idea.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A "copyright," an exclusive right to copy, implies that *I* cannot take *my* blank pages and *my* pen and write *your* words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. You can do that all you want. You just can't distribute it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless, such a right diminishes my rights to my tangible property, which I can distribute in any fashion that I see fit to do so.