Comments on: Rights Violations in the Name of Private Property Property - Prosperity - Peace Sat, 09 May 2015 08:06:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Curt Howland Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:08:04 +0000 Sid,

Let’s pretend that Steve Jobs doesn’t violate Xerox’s Intellectual Property and never puts out the Mac, because he only saw the computer mouse and windowed graphical computer display while on a tour of the PARC facility.

Maybe you should check your own assumptions.

Then, maybe notice that many companies made computer mice and graphical interfaces, that Mac technical specifications and prices were surpassed by the competition during the entire Mac history, that those who do not buy iPads, iPods and iCraps have a supply of alternatives (and always did) that do exactly the same things and better, cheaper.

What Steve Jobs did that no one else could do was bring to market something shiny and new, and get loyal customers that didn’t buy other products because they didn’t want to.

Copyright and patent are irrelevant to the success of Steve Jobs, unless you want to discuss how he violated them and brought joy to the world thereby.

By: Sid Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:45:02 +0000 So no protection for copyright for IP is what you like eh? Alright, let’s go there.

The time is the late 1970’s. You are Steve Jobs. You have just developed the Apple computer, which unbeknownst to you will revolutionize the world in the coming years. You begin to market your product. You invested years of your life, sleepless nights, time while others were golfing, fishing, or just scratching their butts while watching re-runs of bad sit coms. You begin to see sales increase and some success. At last, your reward for years of work and risk are coming to fruition.

Except then an established company (maybe Sears?) with $30 billion in market cap sees the potential for your idea, buys your computer, reverse engineers it inside of a few months with their limitless resources, and then slaughters you in the marketplace due to their vastly superior resources at deploying your work. Your business is destroyed, your life work stolen, you had zero right to protect your invention. You retire to the country to raise cows. You never invent the iMac, iPhone, iPod, etc. Sears doesn’t either because they’re basically a throwback company to the prior century and are very good at retailing but have no real concept of how to develop and innovate a new technology like this. It was just a good deal they figured they could make a fast buck on…and then drop it.

Wow…sign me up for THAT world.

By: JdL Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:14:34 +0000 Is it really stealing to reproduce an idea, an image, or an idea?

It is really possible that Mr. Tucker has no idea whatever what copyright protects? If I write a spreadsheet program, copyright does not prevent someone else from writing and selling another spreadsheet program. It only prohibits someone from making money selling MY particular implementation of a spreadsheet program.

When you demonstrate that you understand this distinction, Mr. Tucker, I might begin to have some respect for your position.

Ultimately, a consistent enforcement of IP would shut down free enterprise as we know it.

This kind of “The sky is falling!” nonsense is exactly why rabid opponents of all IP protection can’t seem to gain any traction beyond a few like-minded fanatics. Thank goodness! So by all means continue ranting in your echo chamber, Mr. Tucker. I occasionally check in to see whether you’ve learned to think and write coherently. Answer so far: no. Not even close.

By: Curt Howland Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:12:20 +0000 Several years ago, I wrote an article called, “The Issue Of Copyright” for The Libertarian Enterprise. What most people think trademark enforcement is prosecuting is fraud.

As Mr. Tucker has said before, the “knock-offs” are not fraudulent. No one believes they are buying a $25 Rolex, and when it breaks the reputation of Rolex(tm) is not tarnished.

I would contend that the reputation of the original is enhanced thereby. The Original gets to say, “Ah, but THIS, this is the real thing. And you can tell by the quality.”

By: GB89012 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:17:25 +0000 With these types of laws restricting innovation our reality is comprised of mere rest stops on the road to true innovation. Many companies today could be nothing more than a mile marker along that road with these laws encouraging the slamming of brakes and parking on the side of the road to ruminate. So with that we sit and throw billions of dollars at that nice mile marker until some arbitrary and very long egg timer expires. All along the idea was good but it should have been just an idea tossed around for a few weeks in a garage but instead it was handed to an IP lawyer. Software firms and the hardware producers everyone is gushing about now are busy suing each other across the planet to make sure nobody passes them on that road. Everything moves in slow motion.

By: Greg Adams Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:44:34 +0000 “trafficking in fakes and violating trademarks”…sounds scary. The difference between peaceful exchange and state/media propaganda is only one verb and one adjective away. Trade becomes trafficking. Entrepreneurship is suddenly a violation of some sort. Fake implies fraud. Trademarks give an objective standard to file name 12.7.g.2011-7a9 on some bureaucrat’s hard drive. bleh…

By: Hip Hop Music Site Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:46:30 +0000 I have always downloaded music from the internet with no remorse. If this keeps up, we just might have tougher internet laws concerning music. An online police state seems to be brewing.