Facts about morality, innovation, and intellectual property

[IQ]

After reading many posts here, I feel the urge to throw some facts into the discussion.

Many people seem to think that intellectual property is a basic right of it's creator that extends almost limitless. Let's get for a moment back to why intellectual property rights were invented in the first place --- yeah that's right, they are not god given. There is a basic dilemma in innovation, namely that of static efficiencies vs. dynamic efficiencies. It basically boils down to this:

1) The world would be a much better place (from a welfare perspective) if there would be no IP rights, as they hinder static efficiencies. Without repeating to much basic micro economics, just think of freeing all manufacturers from the costs of patent's and such. Competition would shift to price, supply matches demand better and everybody would be happy. Except for the innovator whose rent might not be what he hoped for.

2) That's why limited ip rights were invented --- yeah, they don't last forever and don't extend to everything. They should provide an incentive to the innovator to innovate in the first place. As long as his patents, copyright, trademark etc upholds he can expect higher rents.

Now the debate is on: Which of these effects is stronger for the global welfare? The industry is naturally lobbying for extended IP protection, using all kind of sane and insane arguments --- but remember basic micro economics, they just want to increase their rents. That's why they invented the "pirating is theft" campaign. Which amusingly many here repeat without thinking. Fact is: in no law in the world considers them the same --- copyright infringement is the correct term.

Getting back to the question: It has been debated for ages what effects dominate. But at the moment it seems the consensus is that the dynamic efficiencies have been (some say vastly) overrated. Especially in the light of trivial patents in software where even the most hardened proponents of IP property admitted that it is going to far. Even companies that you would expect to embrace the IP protection and spend billions for their patent thickets feel that it is making innovation just to costly and unpredictable --- next patent troll might be lurking where you least expect it. Also the open source movement put another dent into the myth of dynamic efficiencies. Look at the Apache Webserver, Linux etc.

If you want to read a "mildly" biased opinion, read this:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew.all.pdf
Don't worry they deliberately made it free - so you are not infringing any copyright.

Oh, maybe some more on topic remarks about the most favourite subjects of this forum --- the dreaded clone. First: Vas will never take any action if he has any legal council that is worth his money. It's is to expensive, to uncertain and might open a can of worms with the fruit issue. Even if he "wins" there would be probably no money to be collected from the infringers - damage is hard to prove, even harder to collect.

Do I think he has even a case ---- well strange things happen in courts, but no I do not think so. Even if it really started as a reverse engineering project, many things have changed. It's hard to put a percentage on that stuff, i leave that to the wolves. But even to get it back into a working program, with improvements, different eval makes it a very very hard case. It's not like in the old days, where somebody took source code changed 20 lines and 10 values and voila there is the clone. It's not like a telephone book where everything is copied verbatim including deliberate mistakes. I would say he has no case --- if that's good or bad, that everybody must decide for himself based on whether he beliefs in static or dynamic efficiencies.

[michiguel]

After reading many posts here, I feel the urge to throw some facts into the discussion.

Many people seem to think that intellectual property is a basic right of it's creator that extends almost limitless. Let's get for a moment back to why intellectual property rights were invented in the first place --- yeah that's right, they are not god given. There is a basic dilemma in innovation, namely that of static efficiencies vs. dynamic efficiencies. It basically boils down to this:

1) The world would be a much better place (from a welfare perspective) if there would be no IP rights, as they hinder static efficiencies. Without repeating to much basic micro economics, just think of freeing all manufacturers from the costs of patent's and such. Competition would shift to price, supply matches demand better and everybody would be happy. Except for the innovator whose rent might not be what he hoped for.

2) That's why limited ip rights were invented --- yeah, they don't last forever and don't extend to everything. They should provide an incentive to the innovator to innovate in the first place. As long as his patents, copyright, trademark etc upholds he can expect higher rents.

Now the debate is on: Which of these effects is stronger for the global welfare? The industry is naturally lobbying for extended IP protection, using all kind of sane and insane arguments --- but remember basic micro economics, they just want to increase their rents. That's why they invented the "pirating is theft" campaign. Which amusingly many here repeat without thinking. Fact is: in no law in the world considers them the same --- copyright infringement is the correct term.

Getting back to the question: It has been debated for ages what effects dominate. But at the moment it seems the consensus is that the dynamic efficiencies have been (some say vastly) overrated. Especially in the light of trivial patents in software where even the most hardened proponents of IP property admitted that it is going to far. Even companies that you would expect to embrace the IP protection and spend billions for their patent thickets feel that it is making innovation just to costly and unpredictable --- next patent troll might be lurking where you least expect it. Also the open source movement put another dent into the myth of dynamic efficiencies. Look at the Apache Webserver, Linux etc.

If you want to read a "mildly" biased opinion, read this:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew.all.pdf
Don't worry they deliberately made it free - so you are not infringing any copyright.

Oh, maybe some more on topic remarks about the most favourite subjects of this forum --- the dreaded clone. First: Vas will never take any action if he has any legal council that is worth his money. It's is to expensive, to uncertain and might open a can of worms with the fruit issue. Even if he "wins" there would be probably no money to be collected from the infringers - damage is hard to prove, even harder to collect.

Do I think he has even a case ---- well strange things happen in courts, but no I do not think so. Even if it really started as a reverse engineering project, many things have changed. It's hard to put a percentage on that stuff, i leave that to the wolves. But even to get it back into a working program, with improvements, different eval makes it a very very hard case. It's not like in the old days, where somebody took source code changed 20 lines and 10 values and voila there is the clone. It's not like a telephone book where everything is copied verbatim including deliberate mistakes. I would say he has no case --- if that's good or bad, that everybody must decide for himself based on whether he beliefs in static or dynamic efficiencies.

First of all, I am philosophically against patents and I agree with you, *BUT* this is not just a business issue. There is in play a sport and ethics issue, and basic norms of civilized behavior. If I you borrow a pencil from me and I ask you not to give it to someone else's and you do it, you are no violating any law but you are still a jerk. Even in basic science, where results are published and open, you can't break into a lab and steal data in name of innovation and expect the sympathy of the scientific community. I am also interested in the honor code, and not giving credit where the credit is due. Cloning is against all that, and implies a subconscious arrogance and selfishness that I despise. It assumes that you are above everything else and immune.

Miguel

[IQ]

First of all, I am philosophically against patents and I agree with you, *BUT* this is not just a business issue. There is in play a sport and ethics issue, and basic norms of civilized behavior. If I you borrow a pencil from me and I ask you not to give it to someone else's and you do it, you are no violating any law but you are still a jerk. Even in basic science, where results are published and open, you can't break into a lab and steal data in name of innovation and expect the sympathy of the scientific community. I am also interested in the honor code, and not giving credit where the credit is due. Cloning is against all that, and implies a subconscious arrogance and selfishness that I despise. It assumes that you are above everything else and immune.
Miguel

Let's see: The pencil analogy seems wrong. Imagine this I see you writing with your pencil, and start to write with my pencil. Then you say I am not allowed to write like that because you have the "intellectual property". Who is the jerk now? This example nicely illustrates that "stealing" is depriving others of ownership and prohibits their use, whereas patent infringement does not prohibit you from writing.

Second: I am talking about welfare for all. I cannot see the subconscious, arrogance and selfishness in that. Maybe it's the arbitrary "honor code" of some that assumes that one is above everything else....

Giving Credit: here I agree, although i am surprised you assumed otherwise. But then isn't "going through forward and backward through code and taking ideas" enough of credit?

Parting thoughts: Maybe i wrote my post to confusingly, and you got the impression that i am in favour of "cloning" (whatever that is) and against all kinds of IP rights. Let me assure you I made no statement either way - I was merely pointing out that things are not that black or white. Also from a legal standpoint and my experience with ip laws, I stated what I assume Vas chances are to take action.

I did not morally judge - how can i, i am an economists I have no morals

[gerold]

First of all, I am philosophically against patents and I agree with you, *BUT* this is not just a business issue. There is in play a sport and ethics issue, and basic norms of civilized behavior. If I you borrow a pencil from me and I ask you not to give it to someone else's and you do it, you are no violating any law but you are still a jerk. Even in basic science, where results are published and open, you can't break into a lab and steal data in name of innovation and expect the sympathy of the scientific community. I am also interested in the honor code, and not giving credit where the credit is due. Cloning is against all that, and implies a subconscious arrogance and selfishness that I despise. It assumes that you are above everything else and immune.
Miguel

Let's see: The pencil analogy seems wrong. Imagine this I see you writing with your pencil, and start to write with my pencil. Then you say I am not allowed to write like that because you have the "intellectual property". Who is the jerk now? This example nicely illustrates that "stealing" is depriving others of ownership and prohibits their use, whereas patent infringement does not prohibit you from writing.

Second: I am talking about welfare for all. I cannot see the subconscious, arrogance and selfishness in that. Maybe it's the arbitrary "honor code" of some that assumes that one is above everything else....

Giving Credit: here I agree, although i am surprised you assumed otherwise. But then isn't "going through forward and backward through code and taking ideas" enough of credit?

Parting thoughts: Maybe i wrote my post to confusingly, and you got the impression that i am in favour of "cloning" (whatever that is) and against all kinds of IP rights. Let me assure you I made no statement either way - I was merely pointing out that things are not that black or white. Also from a legal standpoint and my experience with ip laws, I stated what I assume Vas chances are to take action.

I did not morally judge - how can i, i am an economists I have no morals

Vas could and may take action if it cuts into his business to much.
He may not get any money from them but the courts could stop the
clone from being put up for sale or even given away for free.
If it went to court i think the people involved in this could be
found
However i do think he will come up with a stronger program and
put R3.1 up as a free program. That would put the clone out
of business. A few other programs may use some ideas from
Robb.Remember this has happened before to Vas and it helped
his sales when he came up with a stronger program.

Best,

Gerold.

[michiguel]

First of all, I am philosophically against patents and I agree with you, *BUT* this is not just a business issue. There is in play a sport and ethics issue, and basic norms of civilized behavior. If I you borrow a pencil from me and I ask you not to give it to someone else's and you do it, you are no violating any law but you are still a jerk. Even in basic science, where results are published and open, you can't break into a lab and steal data in name of innovation and expect the sympathy of the scientific community. I am also interested in the honor code, and not giving credit where the credit is due. Cloning is against all that, and implies a subconscious arrogance and selfishness that I despise. It assumes that you are above everything else and immune.
Miguel

Let's see: The pencil analogy seems wrong. Imagine this I see you writing with your pencil, and start to write with my pencil. Then you say I am not allowed to write like that because you have the "intellectual property". Who is the jerk now? This example nicely illustrates that "stealing" is depriving others of ownership and prohibits their use, whereas patent infringement does not prohibit you from writing.

My analogy works for the purpose I explain. You just changed the situation. Both are correct.

Second: I am talking about welfare for all. I cannot see the subconscious, arrogance and selfishness in that. Maybe it's the arbitrary "honor code" of some that assumes that one is above everything else....

If you are interested in the general welfare, you join an open source project, you do not clone. If you are against Microsoft, you install Linux, you do not hack Windows to install a pirated copy.

Giving Credit: here I agree, although i am surprised you assumed otherwise. But then isn't "going through forward and backward through code and taking ideas" enough of credit?

Please... that is not giving credit.

Parting thoughts: Maybe i wrote my post to confusingly, and you got the impression that i am in favour of "cloning" (whatever that is) and against all kinds of IP rights. Let me assure you I made no statement either way - I was merely pointing out that things are not that black or white. Also from a legal standpoint and my experience with ip laws, I stated what I assume Vas chances are to take action.

I understood very well.

Miguel

I did not morally judge - how can i, i am an economists I have no morals

[M ANSARI]

I think the worst part is the part where the cloner claims that his work is an original work and not derived from the engine he cloned. That is where it changes from being unethical to being flat out theft.

[Rolf]

Just my 2 cents.

You wrote something that has no impact on what we are talking about here in computerchess among professionals in a sport.

The main problem is psychological, how anons could possibly expect to compete, since they cant.

The other is the theft aspect, that's why they are anons after all.

Look, economy without anything about evolution is really poorly designed.

[IQ]

I think the worst part is the part where the cloner claims that his work is an original work and not derived from the engine he cloned. That is where it changes from being unethical to being flat out theft.

I am confused, whom are you talking about? Vas when he took code from fruit or the new "clone" where they most likely took stuff from a whole bunch of programs and most from rybka?

Anyhow let me remind everybody that copyright infringement or plagiarism (as it's called in academia) is not really theft - not in any lawbook on this planet. And that's for good reason - that doesn't make it better or worse, you have to decide that for yourself.

[Rolf]

I think the worst part is the part where the cloner claims that his work is an original work and not derived from the engine he cloned. That is where it changes from being unethical to being flat out theft.

I am confused, whom are you talking about? Vas when he took code from fruit or the new "clone" where they most likely took stuff from a whole bunch of programs and most from rybka?

Anyhow let me remind everybody that copyright infringement or plagiarism (as it's called in academia) is not really theft - not in any lawbook on this planet. And that's for good reason - that doesn't make it better or worse, you have to decide that for yourself.

And we did except a couple of daydreamers. It's a nice give-away that someone (?) out of economics wants to support what some jerks are also pretending, and he's talking about a 'Vas' although he never appeared here much before. Very telling. Thanks.

[Sylwy]

I am confused, whom are you talking about?

Hi Roberto !

It's about Roberto ( Pescatore - of course ) !



Silvian