Should A Person Be Able To Own An Idea?

Title says it...

I keep thinking about whomever might have invented the wheel first saying to the rest of humanity, "Mines. Pay me first."

Wouldn't the world be better of if we were free to use the ideas other people come up with if we can reproduce them ourselves?Should we allow ideas to be hoarded and ransomed for profit?

 

depends on what you classify as an idea.

Is music an idea? or art?

Are inventions merely ideas?

you ask a most intriguing question.

 

As with several of these things, both extremes are unfeasible. A world where anyone can easily steal any idea will lose the incentive for innovation, the one where stealing is made impossible will mean that innovation is not put into use even if it exists. The optimal is probably somewhere in between. This has the interesting result that both of these must be taken into account and you can easily identify people who're not looking for optimisation but for their own benefit (or who are actually clueless) by seeing who argues from only one point instead of taking both into account.

 

My understanding is that you can't patent an idea, though you can patent things dependent on other inventions not yet made. (At least I think so, the example is supposedly Edwin Land, who patented an instantly developing camera in the 30's, before the Chemicals making it work were known, I think)

My problem is with copyright and "derivative" works. We are all plagiarizing the Greeks, as the saying goes. and there are, apparently, people around who will represent Aristarchus' estate if enough damages is involved. J.K. Rowling has had to fight off several suits of little merit, simply because she made a lot of money

 

If you are speaking to patents...

Patents are only as good as the bank account backing them up. Otherwise, they just confirm that you are not duplicating something else.

 

Wouldn't worry about it. That dude (or dudette) has been dead for some 40,000 years. At least.

Even Karl Marx believed in intellectual property. Yeah, we know, soft bigotry of low expectations...

 

It depends on the idea. I don't think you can be as broad, or general as it sounds.

The guy who invented electric windows for automobiles deserved the rights, and the reward.
The guy who invented the battery deserved the rights, and the reward.
The guy who invents a cure for cancer deserves the reward, but there is a need to take that idea and run with it.

Hard call... but I'd side with their right to keep their ideas.

 

That wasn't the inventor....

 

You are correct. I hold two such patents. Some day baby....some day

 

That's right, truth is very few inventors have a knack for turning a profit. But the guy on the end should be an investor instead of an agent.

 

has nothing to do with Marx. Doesn't matter how long the persons been dead, either. What if, when he was alive, he was allowed to do that? What if the person who invented concrete forbid anyone else to use concrete without paying him for using it?

I'd disagree. I believe he should be recognized for having come up with something like a cure for cancer, but that should not mean that he "controls the cure for cancer" and makes an idea personal property. That is very much like me saying no one can use the life-vest- nor any similar conception of a life-vest- without my express permission. That's insane. But we allow people to do that.

The world would be a much better place if we could freely learn from an adopt the knowledge discovered by others. That is what science is supposed to be about. Discovery for the betterment of humanity- not personal vanity, glory, or profit. That's how I see it, at least...

 

That's not how it works. A patent does not prevent someone from using your life vest. It gives you the legal recourse from a manufacturer using your design, manufacturing that invention and profiting from your works. You, as an inventor have the right to profit from your invention, and patent terms give you that right for a reasonable length of time.

Patents have a shelf-life. Usually between 14 and 20 years depending on the type of patent. After which the invention is in the public domain.

 

Patents are most often worthless, trade secrets are much more valuable.

 

I support short-duration copyrights and also business trademarks. I do not support patents as I think they discourage innovation. The argument for patents is that they encourage people to invent things. In reality, they keep people from improving upon what is already invented.

 

Ha, you agree with Michael Faraday. Problem is that Faraday's consequent lack of remuneration may have discouraged others from following up on his discoveries. The mathematical laws that explained Faraday's observations were the bases of Einstein's theories, but it took close to 70 years before anyone noticed that.

True, the formula for Coke and the 11 Secret Herbs and Spices in KFC are still worth billions today

They discourage innovation of any type, as they can be easily used to actually convict an inventor of infringing his own patent.

 

IMHO, the rise in invention corresponds with the rise in patent laws, etc. Patent laws didn't exist until the Renaissance.

Also, you can use other people's ideas for your personal use. I can directly copy a machine and use it myself. It's not a violation of the patent until I try to sell it.

 

Not really. The rise of invention parallels the creation of patent laws. Short lived patents do encourage people not to invent things, but to perfect them to the point that they can be profitable.

 

Imagine the guy who came up with the idea of work getting a patent on it.

I have a patent on sleeping so pay me.

 

Then there is no incentive to share or use an idea. that leads to real hoarding!

 

Wouldn't necessarily disagree that trade secrets are more valuable, until that is someone discovers your (unprotected) secret and competes with you. The value of a patent is in how you capitalize on it.

 

You are of the mindset apparently that we wouldn't have the technology today but for IP rights. I am of the opinion that Microsoft wouldn't have had to spend the fortune they have if the high tech world were more collaborative and accessible, and we would have software that would blow our minds compared to what we have. I guess we will just disagree on that.

 

Maybe 20 years ago. I find it a bit ironic that the op is written by an atheist that has mentioned believers are stuck in the mindset of the past, yet his post clearly misses the global market we exist in today. Patents are worthless, China could give two craps about our patents and they are our number one competitor in just about every market.

On top of that... your patent is only worth as much as you are willing to spend enforcing it, nobody is going to do that for you.

On top of that... We own over 20 international patents and I can assure you, if you went out and copied one today I would NOT sue you. I would wait until you had enough money to make it worth my while, and given the nature of business in general, I doubt you would ever make it that big.

If you want to copy a patent, go for it. You could make a comfortable living under the radar of every major patent holder out there. While you are doing it, try and figure out a trade secret, then sell that to the patent holder.

In case you are wondering "Why then did you patent your products". The answer is simple... to ensure that we did not copy another patent... in other words, to protect our investments from legal recourse.

That is what patents do, in today's market.

 

I would agree. Ideas are not scarce rivalrous goods, so there is no possibility of conflicts over their use. Therefore, there is no need to "own"an idea, as it can be used simultaneously by numerous people without conflict.

The idea that ideas can be "stolen" makes no sense. If I have an idea of, say, some story, you cannot steal it from my mind. You might be able to learn the idea yourself (if I choose to tell you), but that doesn't mean you have removed my idea from my mind, but simply added it to your mind. There is not theft, because I still have my idea.

 

I think people would naturally share a good idea if they had one.

If I found a way to catch more fish, do I chose to share the technique with my neighbors, or do I keep it secret so that I get the most out of my discovery. You can do either, or, and I don't really consider either way wrong, but it reveals the mindset of the person- selfish or social. When the national economy acts in the same way, it reveals the same thing about the nation or society- one where people are willing to share amongst themselves, or one where everyone is trying to push themselves ahead.

I think...

 

You don't know human nature very well, do you. I bet you believe marxism works as well......

The rise of invention came after the creation of patent laws. Being able to profit from an idea gives the incentive to develop the idea further. Without IP protection, the heavy lifting to perfect products wouldn't be done.