Economics: I, Pencil

[shanek]

There are also people on heroin who genuinely believes that it's good for them, as well as a lot of drug dealers. So??

Who are you to tell them otherwise? Don't they know their own business better than you?

But you also need the necessary laws to enforce them. Ergo, you don't have a free market.

Wrong, Claus. This is a strawman AND YOU KNOW IT. I have pointed out the legitimate functions of government to you many, many times. You are just a LIAR.

 

[Earthborn]

Dixon Ticonderoga still makes tens of millions of dollars a year selling them.

But I don't think they have invented them, so it has little to do with how to protect protected innovations.

If you think they haven't maintained their dominance by making their pencils the best quality they can make them, you're as deluded as Claus.

Is any of the innovations they use to make them protected by patent or trade secret or anything? If anyone is allowed to see how they make their pencils, then they have little relevance in a discussion about how to protect innovations against copying.

(btw: there is no way they could be as good as Bruynzeel. )

There's the possibility of a "buyer's license" that you agree to when you purchase the product. This already exists on computer software; in the license agreement, you agree not to disassemble or reverse engineer the computer code. There; that's three possibilities.

Hmmm. That might actually work. If it can be enforced. If people read the agreements and if there is nothing in them that violates existing consumer laws.

No, it isn't. My way is the way described in the Constitution. It's the people who advocate violating the Constitution who need to prove their side...and then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

The people whose job it is to decide whether something violates the constitution don't seem to think it violates the constitution, so I think you'll first have to convince them that it does. I think you'll find it easier just to prove that your solution to the problem is better than anyone else's.

It's just a narrative style to tell it from the pencil's point of view.

Exactly. And the narrative style makes it a parable.

But it's all 100% verifiably true.

That may very well be true, but it does not prove it's all 100% verifiably true. You cannot use the story as evidence, only as an illustration of ideas.

I've wanted to get rid of the more tyrannical laws like the DMCA. That's hardly the same thing.

If the 'tyrannical laws' are gone, what is left of copy right protection?

 

[CFLarsen]

Who are you to tell them otherwise? Don't they know their own business better than you?

What? Are you advocating that drug dealers should be free to sell heroin to drug addicts, and that drug addicts should be free to buy it?

Wrong, Claus. This is a strawman AND YOU KNOW IT. I have pointed out the legitimate functions of government to you many, many times. You are just a LIAR.

Ah, back to the hissy-fits. Sure, why not? It's Xmas after all...

 

[CFLarsen]

But I don't think they have invented them, so it has little to do with how to protect protected innovations.

They didn't. Ergo, the whole pencil argument is invalid.

That might actually work. If it can be enforced.

It can't. It doesn't work. Look at all the copies of Windows, Word, movies, songs.

 

[Earthborn]

It can't. It doesn't work. Look at all the copies of Windows, Word, movies, songs.

I agree with you that those examples show that it would work very poorly, but I don't see how they show it would work much worse than the patent system we have now.

Especially when it comes to physical objects, it will be much easier for people to buy the product than to copy it. Although some advances in 3d printing might change it all, copies of physical products might not become as widespread as software.

There may even be a few advantages to such buyer's licenses. A patent only applies to specific regions in the world. So if someone buys a product in Europe, he can take it with him to Taiwan and legally copy it there. The buyer's license applies to a buyer, not a region so a buyer who takes it to Taiwan to reverse engineer it there is still in violation.

This of course assume that such licenses can be enforced globally. Seeing how much Libertarians like the UN, I don't think they want global enforcement of anything.

 

[CFLarsen]

I agree with you that those examples show that it would work very poorly, but I don't see how they show it would work much worse than the patent system we have now.

Especially when it comes to physical objects, it will be much easier for people to buy the product than to copy it. Although some advances in 3d printing might change it all, copies of physical products might not become as widespread as software.

Naturally, you have to have some sort of production line, if you want to start selling something physical. But there are lots of sweatshops in Asia doing just that, and their fake products are hurting the companies that have patented their products. That's where the law comes in. We sure as heck don't see any effect from companies voluntarily agreeing not to copy each others' products!

There may even be a few advantages to such buyer's licenses. A patent only applies to specific regions in the world. So if someone buys a product in Europe, he can take it with him to Taiwan and legally copy it there. The buyer's license applies to a buyer, not a region so a buyer who takes it to Taiwan to reverse engineer it there is still in violation.

This of course assume that such licenses can be enforced globally. Seeing how much Libertarians like the UN, I don't think they want global enforcement of anything.

Yet another contradiction in Libertarianism. It doesn't strike me as a particularly well thought out political philosophy.

 

[shanek]

But I don't think they have invented them, so it has little to do with how to protect protected innovations.

But it has everything to do with innovations in an "unprotected" market.

Is any of the innovations they use to make them protected by patent or trade secret or anything?

Not by patent. Possibly by trade secret, but it seems to me a pencil would be very easy to reverse engineer.

If anyone is allowed to see how they make their pencils, then they have little relevance in a discussion about how to protect innovations against copying.

They just keep innovating and making the best pencils they can. They also have established a reputable, popular brand name, which also helps tremendously. You can go buy off-brand cookies that use the same recipe as Oreo, but more people buy Oreos. The market is full of examples like that.

Hmmm. That might actually work. If it can be enforced. If people read the agreements and if there is nothing in them that violates existing consumer laws.

Well, it's not the consumers you're worried about; it's competitive companies. I think there's a different standard there.

The people whose job it is to decide whether something violates the constitution

That would be the people. And a LOT of people are speaking out against these unconstitutional laws.

Exactly. And the narrative style makes it a parable.

No, a parable is a work of fiction, which has a moral to it. This is a real-life description of how pencils and the free market work.

If the 'tyrannical laws' are gone, what is left of copy right protection?

The legitimate protections operating under Article I Section 8 Clause 8 which do not engage an any activities the government is restricted from doing elsewhere in the Constitution.

 

[shanek]

What? Are you advocating that drug dealers should be free to sell heroin to drug addicts, and that drug addicts should be free to buy it?

As usual, you deliberately distort the point when you're desperate. We were talking about patent exchanges, which YOU were (WRONGLY) likening to heroin deals.

(And yes, drug dealers should be free to sell heroin to drug addicts, and that drug addicts should be free to buy it, but that's a completely different discussion.)

Ah, back to the hissy-fits. Sure, why not? It's Xmas after all...

Sure, Claus. Avoid responsibility for your own dishonesty by making it look like the other person's fault. Real mature.

 

[shanek]

It can't. It doesn't work. Look at all the copies of Windows, Word, movies, songs.

Um, Claus, that's all happening under your wonderful government-sponsored copyright and patent laws that you are defending. It is THOSE that don't work.

 

[shanek]

Especially when it comes to physical objects, it will be much easier for people to buy the product than to copy it. Although some advances in 3d printing might change it all, copies of physical products might not become as widespread as software.

And when those advantages come, the free market companies either have to adapt to the new paradigm or go out of business.

The music distribution market has basically been saved by iTunes and other online distribution companies. People wanted cheap, easily downloadable songs, and they didn't want to have to pay for the whole smegging album to get them. If the recording industry had allowed that to happen years earlier, the whole music-swapping "problem" could have been avoided.

(I put "problem" in quotes because every study done on the matter has shown that this has actually resulted in more sales, not fewer; the lower sales come simply from the economic recession that has hurt everybody else.)

There may even be a few advantages to such buyer's licenses. A patent only applies to specific regions in the world. So if someone buys a product in Europe, he can take it with him to Taiwan and legally copy it there.

Which is actually where most of the pirate copies Claus is whining about are made.

This of course assume that such licenses can be enforced globally. Seeing how much Libertarians like the UN, I don't think they want global enforcement of anything.

If someone from outside the US contracts with someone inside the US, they agree to abide by US contract law. That's all you'd need.

 

[shanek]

But there are lots of sweatshops in Asia doing just that,

Oh, yes, and we all know what a hotbed of Libertarianism Asia is...

 

[CFLarsen]

As usual, you deliberately distort the point when you're desperate. We were talking about patent exchanges, which YOU were (WRONGLY) likening to heroin deals.

I was asking if that's what you meant. How can that possibly be a distortion?

(And yes, drug dealers should be free to sell heroin to drug addicts, and that drug addicts should be free to buy it, but that's a completely different discussion.)

Saved for posterity.

Sure, Claus. Avoid responsibility for your own dishonesty by making it look like the other person's fault. Real mature.

Rrrrrrrrrright.

 

[CFLarsen]

Um, Claus, that's all happening under your wonderful government-sponsored copyright and patent laws that you are defending. It is THOSE that don't work.

We are talking about the user agreements that people violate. You are, once again, wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, yes, and we all know what a hotbed of Libertarianism Asia is...

The existence of Asian sweatshops proves you wrong.

 

[shanek]

The existence of Asian sweatshops proves you wrong.

How is Asia a free market, Claus?

 

[shanek]

We are talking about the user agreements that people violate. You are, once again, wrong.

They rely on the copyright and patent laws to enforce them. YOU are wrong, AS USUAL.

 

[Earthborn]

But it has everything to do with innovations in an "unprotected" market.

I don't think so. In this case the company decides voluntarily to not protect its innovations in a protected market. That means there would be no difference for them if they operated in an unprotected market. We are talking about how an unprotected market or differently protected market would work, so a company for which is makes no difference is simply irrelevant.

They just keep innovating and making the best pencils they can.

Sure, whatever. They are irrelevant. Use a company that does use patents to protect its works as an example.

Well, it's not the consumers you're worried about; it's competitive companies.

The easiest way a competitive company can get a hold of another company's innovation is by simply buying the product like any other consumer. So the buyer's license that makes it illegal to reverse engineer it must be the same for consumers and competitors.

That would be the people.

Represented by the Supreme Court or however you have organised it. That's because it is not practical to get everybody to decide.

And a LOT of people are speaking out against these unconstitutional laws.

There are also a lot of people who don't, and even believe there are a lot more things that should be considered constitutional that libertarians consider unconstitutional.

No, a parable is a work of fiction, which has a moral to it.

I would argee with you if you want to argue that the distinction between fiction and non-fiction is sometimes blurry. But a story about a talking pencil clearly belongs under 'fiction', imho.

This is a real-life description of how pencils and the free market work.

No, it isn't. Just because the story teaches people something about real-life, does not make it non-fiction.

The legitimate protections operating under Article I Section 8 Clause 8 which do not engage an any activities the government is restricted from doing elsewhere in the Constitution.

Don't keep me guessing: what does it say?

 

[Earthborn]

If the recording industry had allowed that to happen years earlier, the whole music-swapping "problem" could have been avoided.

Which shows that even private companies can show reluctance to change, just like the government.

Which is actually where most of the pirate copies Claus is whining about are made.

That's the point.

If someone from outside the US contracts with someone inside the US, they agree to abide by US contract law. That's all you'd need.

You'll also need the Taiwanese government enforce it, or any other nation's government. If you don't have that, you're still in the same situation as with patent laws: having certain regions of the world where people copy products as much as they want.

 

[CFLarsen]

How is Asia a free market, Claus?

Tell me something: Why can you use real-life examples to support your imaginary scenario, when others can't use them to show that you are wrong?

You hop from one foot to another, you never stick to one subject. To you, everything can be used in an argument, but if your opponent tries the same, you simply deem it false.

It's fundamentally dishonest. You are not here for debate, but for pontification.

 

[digitalmcq]

How is Asia a free market, Claus?

I'd just like to point out that the 'East Asian Tigers' generated literally the fasted economic growth in human history using a development model that relied heavily on government protection and guidance.

In fact, every county that is now developed (no exceptions) has avoided the free market model during the course of its development.