150 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 12 May \ parent \ on: Thoughts on the exoself mostly_harmless
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.
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