• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does "Intellectual Property" exist?

Does "Intellectual Property" exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 96.2%
  • No

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Total voters
    26
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.
 
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.

Actually it is a very successful property rights structure to guard intellectual property. It greatlt increases societal efficiency.
 
Yes but sometimes it can be used in malicious ways and protections can be taken to extremes.
 
Ideas and intellectual property are not the sane. You have to put your idea on paper with documentation as to what your idea does, why it is special, and why it should be patented or copyrighted. When that is achieved, then it becomes intellectual property.
 
Ideas and intellectual property are not the sane. You have to put your idea on paper with documentation as to what your idea does, why it is special, and why it should be patented or copyrighted. When that is achieved, then it becomes intellectual property.

That is a logical fallacy known as a distinction without a difference. It's intellectual property at the instance that the thought occurs. How it is transmitted (verbally, written, musically, etc.) or legally protected is irrelevant to whether or not it exists or that it is in fact intellectual property.
 
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.

What makes no sense about a patent or copyright law? I agree that it is frustrating at times, since I wish that more utility knives had the "blade lock" feature patented by Irwin, but good ideas are valuable thus are worthy of legal protection.
 
That is a logical fallacy known as a distinction without a difference. It's intellectual property at the instance that the thought occurs. How it is transmitted (verbally, written, musically, etc.) or legally protected is irrelevant to whether or not it exists or that it is in fact intellectual property.

There is a big difference. I can have an idea to make a flying car but unless I figure out a way to actually make it then that idea isnt intellectual property and is worthless
 
Ideas and intellectual property are not the sane. You have to put your idea on paper with documentation as to what your idea does, why it is special, and why it should be patented or copyrighted. When that is achieved, then it becomes intellectual property.

On what do you base that (bolded above) requirement?
 
Intellectual property is a human construct that allows artists and inventors to profit from their contributions to society. It 'exists' similar to actual property in that it's existence leaves society better off.

Those are the arguments behind it anyway.
 
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.

Ideas are not copyrightable.

The tangible manifestation of that idea that you create is.
 
Ideas and intellectual property are not the sane. You have to put your idea on paper with documentation as to what your idea does, why it is special, and why it should be patented or copyrighted. When that is achieved, then it becomes intellectual property.

Copyrights are automatic at the creation of your work.

Patents require further documentation.
 
It can be or do you view it as a perfect incorruptible system?

No, it's perfectly corruptible. Especially since people who don't want to pay for intellectual property, will simply steal it. It doesn't get much more corrupt than that. ;)
 
No, it's perfectly corruptible. Especially since people who don't want to pay for intellectual property, will simply steal it. It doesn't get much more corrupt than that. ;)

I am not stealing their intellectual property, I am not breaking into their database, stealing the content, and selling it online like someone apparently just did.
 
I am not stealing their intellectual property, I am not breaking into their database, stealing the content, and selling it online like someone apparently just did.

Whatever helps you sleep at night bro.
 
That is a logical fallacy known as a distinction without a difference. It's intellectual property at the instance that the thought occurs. How it is transmitted (verbally, written, musically, etc.) or legally protected is irrelevant to whether or not it exists or that it is in fact intellectual property.

But if you can't prove that you had it in any demonstrable way, you can't go after someone else for using the idea, or even show that they got it from you. Just saying that you had it first doesn't mean that you actually had it first.
 
There is a big difference. I can have an idea to make a flying car but unless I figure out a way to actually make it then that idea isnt intellectual property and is worthless

Value doesn't effect ownership. You can have a worthless idea, but it's still your idea - you own that idea, it's your intellectual property. You can have an extremely valuable idea, never share the idea, so the idea never actualizes its value, but it too is still your intellectual property.
 
IMO, you can't own an idea, any more than you can own a thought. It makes no sense.

Of course you can own an idea. However, you cannot own it forever, eventually patents expire.
 
But if you can't prove that you had it in any demonstrable way, you can't go after someone else for using the idea, or even show that they got it from you. Just saying that you had it first doesn't mean that you actually had it first.

Whether you have taken the step to externally record your intellectual property or not, doesn't change whether the idea or thought is your intellectual property. It does, as you rightfully point out, determine whether you can demonstrate to others that you own the intellectual property versus others that may have had the same idea. If you never shared the idea, then there is no way a person could have stolen your idea, they must have had the same idea, and their intellectual property is similar to yours. If they recorded their idea, and you didn't, then you're idea is still your intellectual property that you own, you just can't profit from the ownership of intellectual property because someone else registered the idea via copyright or patent as their now protected intellectual property. You still have your intellectual property, it's just not protected nor is it available to you to profit from your property. An example would be what Edison did to Tesla.
 
Of course you can own an idea. However, you cannot own it forever, eventually patents expire.

You can still own the idea after your copyright or patent expires, and you can still profit from it. You just can't monopolize the potential income anymore, which is what a copyright or patent allows you to temporarily do, with the government securing that ability for you under pain of law.
 
Back
Top Bottom