|
|
|
|
|
|
by kiliantics
2640 days ago
|
|
|
Of course, we are all simply "standing on the shoulders of giants" -- and also on the shoulders of everyone else, giant or no, that we rely on in this interconnected world. This kind of reasoning implies pretty strongly that intellectual property should not be privately owned, excluding others from its use who could just as likely have discovered it. |
|
|
It is important to be precise. Patents, which are exclusive rights to ideas irrespective of origin, are much less defensible than other rights that are lumped into this category of intellectual property.
Trademarks and trade secrets have obvious reasons to remain privately owned. Trademarks prevent fraud and protect reputations. Trade secrets can only be acquired through espionage or breach of confidentiality contracts, both of which are clear types of aggression and invasion of privacy.
Copyrights are the grey area, because a copyright is only on a specific work with a specific origin. If I write a book that is similar to yours, that alone doesn't violate your copyright. With a patent, you could be in violation even if you never heard of the patentholder or their invention, but violating a copyright requires specifically distributing copies of the work of another. Duration is one of the key concerns here. But without copyrights, it is unclear how one could make a living as an author, a publisher, a musician, or a filmmaker.
If you think patents should be abolished, then say so, and you'll be on strong footing. If you think copyrights should be abolished, you better bring some good arguments. If you wish to abolish trademarks and trade secrets, then you are on extremely weak ground and also should not try to conflate these legal concepts with the others.