St. Anselm proposed an a priori proof of G-d's existence in the 11th century in what is called the Ontological Argument. He used a variant of Plato's "forms" to say that each thing in the world has certain characteristics without which they would not necessarily be that thing. One of the Anselm said that without the trait of existence, a god wouldn't be a god and (among other very important things that for the sake of brevity I am leaving out)therefore G-d exists. Plato said essentially the same thing except that he wasn't talking about existence per se, but rather characteristics of something. In terms of Intellectual Property, Plato would say that without the ability to own or control it, it's not intellectual property. It's just somebody's idea. That's what I was saying before about knowing where the boundaries are. If there is something called Intellectual Property, then the Property part of it has characteristics of property. Land is not property unless someone owns it. If nobody owns it, then it's not property.
Intellectual Property - at least the property portion of it is defined by ownership. That is one of the natural limits of it. If it cannot have ownership - even common ownership - such as the public domain, then it is not intellectual property.
In our legal system we recognize this fact with patents. You can't patent a number or an idea like "let's go to lunch." You can patent an idea and then give that ownership to the commonweal, but that doesn't obviate the ownership of the idea.
the context of "inalienable rights" as used in our founding documents was Hobbes and Locke's discussion of the "natural" rights of man. They are inalienable not only because they cannot be transferred, taken, bought or sold, but because they are natural -- we are born with them.
You are right that you cannot appropriate the "intellectual" part of the intellectual property. You can take my ideas and think them, just as I am taking Hobbes' and Locke's ideas and saying them here. But the "property" part of IP involves ownership. You can, therefore, deprive someone of part of the essence of their idea by using it in a way not consistent with their ownership of it.
Clearly, this is too philosophical a discussion for such a technical board. Thanks for the discourse.
If you define intellectual propery as an arbitrary system then, perhaps, you can claim that it won't have natural limits.
But just as our Founders stated that we were born with inalienable rights - read that to mean "natural rights," it can be argued that intellectual property is a natural right.
Otherwise, according to your definition, natural law would dictate that things like equality and democracy are "unnatural and arbitrarily designed." In the animal[natural] kingdom, might makes right. The strong takes from the weak.
Appropriating another's intellectual property without compensation or permission is a "might makes right" argument. Very natural, but very wrong. We know it to be wrong because your taking from me violates my natural inalienable right to liberty.
The natural limits to any system is where it infringes on the limits of another system. So one of Intellectual Property's limit might be where it limits another's ability to live (e.g. If you had a patent on a cure for cancer but decided not to let anyone have it).
Just because you want something for free doesn't make it natural to have it be free.
It's not a silly question. Perhaps worded injudiciously, but not silly. What's silly is to believe that since the Monarch butterfly doesn't have intellectual property, then we shouldn't either.
The Monarch butterfly doesn't have hospitals, or schools, or orphanages. They don't create new ideas, compose poetry and music, heal the sick or seek to right injustice either. They are a lower life form.
We humans, on the other hand, have been endowed with the gifts of intelligence (although sometimes you wouldn't know it), ambition, compassion, etcetera.
There are natural limits to any system - be it intellectual property - or anything else. Those limits are tested over time and examined to find out if in fact the original system has evolved into a gradient of the original or into a new organism. Music was once definded melodically. Now we consider rap to be a high musical form. Radically different, but still music. It's all in the definition.
The key word in IP is not "intellectual," but "property." The best analogy is to examine the difference between tribal cultures that don't have private property rights and cultures that do. While the tribal cultures are often romanticized and idealized, they more resemble a butterfly than man in terms of human progress. Private land ownership and the rule of law allows the stability necessary for long term investment and growth.
Rail against greed if you will, but to deny that it is a primary motivator in the anthropology and sociology of man is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because you think gravity is evil.
Slashdot Mirror
St. Anselm proposed an a priori proof of G-d's existence in the 11th century in what is called the Ontological Argument. He used a variant of Plato's "forms" to say that each thing in the world has certain characteristics without which they would not necessarily be that thing. One of the Anselm said that without the trait of existence, a god wouldn't be a god and (among other very important things that for the sake of brevity I am leaving out)therefore G-d exists. Plato said essentially the same thing except that he wasn't talking about existence per se, but rather characteristics of something. In terms of Intellectual Property, Plato would say that without the ability to own or control it, it's not intellectual property. It's just somebody's idea. That's what I was saying before about knowing where the boundaries are. If there is something called Intellectual Property, then the Property part of it has characteristics of property. Land is not property unless someone owns it. If nobody owns it, then it's not property. Intellectual Property - at least the property portion of it is defined by ownership. That is one of the natural limits of it. If it cannot have ownership - even common ownership - such as the public domain, then it is not intellectual property. In our legal system we recognize this fact with patents. You can't patent a number or an idea like "let's go to lunch." You can patent an idea and then give that ownership to the commonweal, but that doesn't obviate the ownership of the idea.
the context of "inalienable rights" as used in our founding documents was Hobbes and Locke's discussion of the "natural" rights of man. They are inalienable not only because they cannot be transferred, taken, bought or sold, but because they are natural -- we are born with them. You are right that you cannot appropriate the "intellectual" part of the intellectual property. You can take my ideas and think them, just as I am taking Hobbes' and Locke's ideas and saying them here. But the "property" part of IP involves ownership. You can, therefore, deprive someone of part of the essence of their idea by using it in a way not consistent with their ownership of it. Clearly, this is too philosophical a discussion for such a technical board. Thanks for the discourse.
If you define intellectual propery as an arbitrary system then, perhaps, you can claim that it won't have natural limits. But just as our Founders stated that we were born with inalienable rights - read that to mean "natural rights," it can be argued that intellectual property is a natural right. Otherwise, according to your definition, natural law would dictate that things like equality and democracy are "unnatural and arbitrarily designed." In the animal[natural] kingdom, might makes right. The strong takes from the weak. Appropriating another's intellectual property without compensation or permission is a "might makes right" argument. Very natural, but very wrong. We know it to be wrong because your taking from me violates my natural inalienable right to liberty. The natural limits to any system is where it infringes on the limits of another system. So one of Intellectual Property's limit might be where it limits another's ability to live (e.g. If you had a patent on a cure for cancer but decided not to let anyone have it). Just because you want something for free doesn't make it natural to have it be free.
It's not a silly question. Perhaps worded injudiciously, but not silly. What's silly is to believe that since the Monarch butterfly doesn't have intellectual property, then we shouldn't either. The Monarch butterfly doesn't have hospitals, or schools, or orphanages. They don't create new ideas, compose poetry and music, heal the sick or seek to right injustice either. They are a lower life form. We humans, on the other hand, have been endowed with the gifts of intelligence (although sometimes you wouldn't know it), ambition, compassion, etcetera. There are natural limits to any system - be it intellectual property - or anything else. Those limits are tested over time and examined to find out if in fact the original system has evolved into a gradient of the original or into a new organism. Music was once definded melodically. Now we consider rap to be a high musical form. Radically different, but still music. It's all in the definition. The key word in IP is not "intellectual," but "property." The best analogy is to examine the difference between tribal cultures that don't have private property rights and cultures that do. While the tribal cultures are often romanticized and idealized, they more resemble a butterfly than man in terms of human progress. Private land ownership and the rule of law allows the stability necessary for long term investment and growth. Rail against greed if you will, but to deny that it is a primary motivator in the anthropology and sociology of man is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because you think gravity is evil.