By Joakim Book
While protecting "intellectual property" has a good sound to it — even among libertarians — such policies are harmful to authentic property rights.
related posts
126 sats \ 3 replies \ @didiplaywell 13 Jul
"Intellectual Property" is a flawed concept. It doesn't even benefit the creator as much as it appears, that's the reason open-source companies like Prusa exists and thrive. The secret is not to hold property on a concept, but to master it. People pays for that, and the ones who copy you makes you the standard, that's a win, not a crime. That's not to say that you can not register a concept to be credited as the author, but to pretend to prohibit other people to think the same things you are thinking is absolutely insane. "If I draw this, you can not draw it". Ridiculous, insane, flawed. I can't stand it.
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 13 Jul
I think it's part of the "everything I don't like should be illegal" mindset.
It doesn't feel good to see someone else getting credit for something you did first. Social norms can take care of that, though, by shaming people who pretend to have created something when they should have given attribution.
reply
82 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 13 Jul
Even more: in practice, in the engineering world, everyone shares what they know because they can only benefit from doing so. So even if you can keep secrecy at first (which might actually make sense at the very beginning), chances are at some point you will start benefiting much more from openly sharing what you have. I'm not saying that hypothetically, that's what actually happens in the engineering community at large. I benefit myself from it lavishly and give back as much as I can in return. It's like zapping! :)
reply
55 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 13 Jul
Credit is manageable. Using the same line of thought to prohibit someone to even repeat your words is insane. And it's fully hypocritical, because no patent pays to the bibliography it's based on. You do can keep secrecy, that's for sure.
reply
34 sats \ 3 replies \ @TNStacker 13 Jul
Certificates and courses in IP law are now being added to engineering curricula to bridge the gap and prepare inventors and makers.
https://tickle.utk.edu/tce-introduces-ip-law-graduate-certificate-program/
reply
34 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 13 Jul
I think that's been common in electrical engineering for a while. I have a relative who went into IP law from EE and that's also Stephan Kinsella's background.
It's definitely a practical skill set, even if it's philosophically incoherent.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Jul
I have a friend in a similar situation. Chemistry to law school for patent law in pharmaceutical
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 13 Jul
Like business acumen, legal acumen is necessary to do somethings. Until the system changes, and I don't see that happening real soon.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate 13 Jul
The only ones who really support Intellecutal Property laws are IP Lawyers, and those that can navigate the legal system with ease (and have capital to create moats).
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 13 Jul
And, sometimes, not even them. See: Kinsella, Stephan.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @DesertDave 15 Jul
All information and art will be free for us to flourish. In Bitcoin future, we won't need these silly illusions.
reply