150 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury OP 12 May \ parent \ on: Thoughts on the exoself mostly_harmless
I wonder if it's because the default situation without IP, or at least, the mythology of it, is some lone inventor spends his life pursuing something and then dies a pauper, while others grow fat on the profits of that work.
To me, this one seems damn near impossible to even research with good intentions, since figuring out how to control for assorted factors would make natural experiments really hard to do. I expect people get the results they want to get.
I expect people get the results they want to get.
Good catch. That was my sense too which is probably why it's such a political thing.
It seems that corporations benefit disproportionately from IP, at the expense of the inventor, but maybe that's hard to appreciate.
I was hoping there might be an interesting double standard. Like, thoughts are sacred and their manifestations aren't.
reply
I was hoping there might be an interesting double standard. Like, thoughts are sacred and their manifestations aren't.
There's an intriguing idea. Perhaps: the more obviously connected in origin to a human being, the more sacred? And the more connected to abstract hierarchies (e.g., a company) the more profane?
Although I can immediately think of examples that violate it.
I expect there's something to your idea, but it's super nuanced, just like Terry Regier's work showed the underlying sensibility of why prepositions work the way they do.
reply
I highly recommend the work of Stephan Kinsella on IP.
He’s a patent attorney and after years of trying to justify IP philosophically, he concluded that it just isn’t justifiable.
reply