The Future of Civilization. VIII

The Desease of Intellectual Property

13 IP Rage

13.1 Future of Civilization. Conflicting Trends & Complexities

Civilization to come in our deliberations appeared as the socium of:

• Economy of Free Time
• Creative Labour
• Dialogue
• Small Groups
• Ultimate Individual Freedom
• Individual Self-Determination
• Personalities
• No behemoths & bureaucracies of any kind — all listed features interrelated, entailing each other.

It is all about the final outcome … of what? Of one trend if it overtakes others. This positive trend unfolds as direct translation of market forces, first and foremost — competition, which pushes for ever increasing productivity and, as a result, for dominance of creativity in production and, correspondingly, in other areas of social life … with all above listed consequences-aspects along.

There is another trend, which pushes socium development in the opposite direction. That is monopolization. Monopolization starts as natural emerging of big guys in production and other areas of social life. If it is not limited, monopolization tends to suppress creativity, first — in production and, correspondingly, in other areas. Its final outcome (again, if it is not limited) is to bring the socium to the state of crude communism in the end.

Admittedly, there are, at least, two aspects which I am not ready to address yet and which make the picture more complex. One actually was somewhat pondered already. It is about efforts by modern societies to curb monopolization. No matter how effective they are, the truth is that not a state of the free world has turned into complete crude communism as of today. That means, competition to some degree is going on. We don’t know, however, which trend out of said major two prevails at the moment. This requires specific methods of evaluation.

The second not yet addressed aspect affecting the big picture is monopolization-competition dynamics in the virtual world. Presumably, it must be different to compare with the traditional, generally speaking, hardware production.

However, there is one more phenomenon relevant for our investigation. This is not a “complication” but, in my view, a fundamental force, which might play a crucial, in a bad way, role regarding the future to come. I am talking about “Intellectual Property,” IP.

13.2 IP & Markets

We have noted already that the topic of IP pertains, at least formally, to our investigation because of its specific relations to monopolies and ideas simultaneously. Whatever IP role is, it must increase as much as role of creativity increases, obviously. And what is that role? The widely accepted claim is that IP is to promote creativity. I have come to conclusion the claim is a fantasy. Let us check it out.

We can approach the problem starting at different points.

For example, we can use Open Business Models. From historical angle, OBMs, as they are in essence, simply recreate, in different ways, normal situation of free market economy, as it used to be before patents and copyrights were introduced. Or, theoretically speaking, OBMs represent free market as if copyrights and patents have never been introduced. Namely, businesses were conducted according laws pertaining to business as such, while ideas and aesthetic forms, or generally speaking, cultural phenomena were accessible to everyone without restrictions of any kind.

If we conduct the logical operation to direct the business idea of OBM to infinity, which actually means to expand it on whole socium with all its structures, features and properties, we will get such an ideal, in terms of market, state as most of them were about in reality in the West back at 17–18th centuries.

In any case, we have to explore an ideal state where all the ideas are in the common pool, accessible for any entity. In short: All ideas are for all businesses. No restrictions, no favors, no privileges. At the same time, business will work according its own, I would say, nature, framed by competition, productivity, exposure, logistics, funds, supply & demand dynamics.

What is so advantageous for a given business under such conditions? The answer: All ideas are in its disposal. Pick up any one and do your business! And because of that a huge “disadvantage” happens — fierce competition. Is this good or evil?

A quick reminder before we proceed: When two ideas meet, in a mind or conversation within a small group, they produce a third one. From that follows that ever increasing competition and, at the same time, availability of all the ideas add up together to push for production of new ideas: Competition — as the demanding force, availability of the ideas — as the supplying means! In the big picture, the very absence of patents as such, promotes production of ideas. In short: Absence of patents promotes creativity.

And vice versa, patents restrict availability of ideas and thus directly limit means to produce new ideas. On the other hand, said restriction eliminates certain competition and consequentially decreases demand for new ideas and thus indirectly inhibits production of new ideas from that end. That means, in the big picture, patents inhibit creativity. In particular, patents slow down progress of technology.

We could start at different point — with Open Source Software, and expand its ideas on the entire socium. Or we can take some other trends we had analyzed or those we had not — the conclusion will be the exactly same … Let it be our homework.

Now, let us do some more theory with notions of IP as such.

13.2 On IP

Again, if society puts breaks on monopolization, then competition pushes toward the future of freedom, creativity, small groups, etc. But, besides “natural” monopolization, we encounter another fundamental obstacle. It stays in the way not indirectly as classic monopolies do, but as a direct stumble block.

The block is specific monopolies under umbrella name of Intellectual Property. These monopolies do not develop naturally but get imposed on markets artificially. Generally, they are, by definition, restrictions to use different cultural phenomena (which can also be called, in more elevated language “products of spirit,” or, in more mundane language “intellectual products,” or in the language of logic “ideal things”).

Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” (A letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813)

The fundamental point made by Jefferson is evidently true and valid. It is necessary to keep it in mind while we ponder other aspects of the issue.

First, restrictions of any kind for “use” of cultural phenomena, in general, are just against the nature of humanity, plain and simple. They are, as a matter of principle. In order for a society to normally develop, free communication with, circulation around, spread among people of cultural phenomena is a must. That means, IP is against normality of humanity, or, in short, just against humanity. From that stand point, IP is a nonsense, just by definition.

Second, said restrictions, essentially, amount to treatment of “ideal things” (or spiritual, or intellectual, or cultural) as if they were material (follows directly from the Jefferson’s take), which is another face of the same nonsense, the logical one.

Third, the rationale behind that nonsense is that IP “protection” generates incentives for creators and thus promotes creativity.

Second, said restrictions, essentially, amount to treatment of “ideal things” (or spiritual, or intellectual, or cultural) as if they were material (follows directly from the Jefferson’s take), which is another face of the same nonsense, the logical one.

Third, the rationale behind that nonsense is that IP “protection” generates incentives for creators and thus promotes creativity.

Is this claim true? If it is, all my talking about theoretical nonsense becomes irrelevant. To determine that I present a several thoughts on the subject here (See more developed theory in my book Culture vs. Copyright).

Let note for the start that, mildly speaking, it is just suspicious claim that something can work against the nature, at all. Humans do use forces of nature but this can be done only by complying with them, with the way they work, but not against them. A sailing ship can move in the direction of the wind by using the power of the wind as it is, naturally. She can move against the wind also but still by using the same wind with a very specific positioning of her sails, using natural force of the wind in a specific way. The only thing that ship cannot do is to ignore the wind, to act as if wind is not what it is. Pretending that wind is not what it is is analogous with IP, which treats cultural phenomena as if they are material, are of different nature than they really are, that is, in fact, against their nature. Yes, the analogy is rather accurate. How can it work? Let us have a closer look.

13.3 No IP Socium, a Supplemental Thought Experiment

To address the “incentives argument” directly let us imagine “no IP socium” again. The socium where “all ideas are for all businesses.”

Say, I came up with a promising business idea. I would like to keep it secret before any use. Evidently, it gives me nothing at this stage.

Say, I try to implement my idea. Roughly, I have to organize some production and reach for the customers. Will others copy my idea now? I doubt it. But they will … if I am successful. And if I am not, why to worry about copying? To prevent others from a possible success?

Say, instead of trying myself, I can sell the idea to someone who would believe and be ready to invest in it. And then we are again at the stage of competition to come and play its role … in the case of success, again. And, if there is no success there, why to worry about copying?

The conclusion, its first edition is: I “have” to really worry about copying of my idea, generally speaking, in one case only: In the case when I am successful, this or that way. And, again, what will the copying cause in that case? The answer is — competition. Of course, a business doesn’t want competition … but the socium does, alas.

Now, in turn, I can use others’ ideas, copy them to my advantage. Is this good or bad for me? This question is rhetorical.

But we are not done with my idea yet. There is a noteworthy aspect of the competition, no matter how much I, the business hate it. Competition develops my market, which is a major factor for my success. Actually, success is a translation of development of my market. That means, if market is not developed yet I can only beg others to copy my idea and compete with me. This is why restaurants get open oftentimes in the areas full of restaurants already, that is — where many possible patrons shop. Yes, there is ever increasing competition in the area. That means, on the other hand, the market for a new restaurant in the area is well developed. Of course, all other restaurants would hate every newcomer, while patrons, just the opposite, will greet one.

What all that does boil down to? It boils down to yet another specification of the conclusion, to its second edition. I can hate competition and thus copying of my idea in case of my success, but I have success on the developed market only. That really drives the point home: “Protection”of my idea makes sense only if it translates into successful business on a developed market. And what happens if I don’t have any protection of my idea while I do well on the developed market? Competition happens. Is this good or evil?

On the top of all that, there is a bit more for me, the inventor. If I choose to sell an idea while no legal protection of it is possible, I can sell it to as many buyers I want. How does this sound?

And now my story becomes even more interesting. Say, a buyer wants to use the idea exclusively (until it is out on market, of course). That makes sense, because in this case, my buyer has the advantage of being first, no more but no less. So, he wants me not to go anyone else to. I would agree, if the prise put in the sale contract is handsome enough …

And here is the crux of the matter. If there is a legal IP protection in place, my buyer does not need to pay a lot. Just the opposite — he pays as little as possible. Why? Because I, the author, am not a businessman, as a matter of rule. I have to convince an investor that my idea is worthy. And I am happy if succeeded with the first and one possible buyer. I am not in position to bargain hard: The buyer will be protected in any case, no matter what he pays but I wouldn’t risk to go to another one. This is precisely how it is with authors.

Now, what happens if there is no legal IP protection there? I can sell to one, no matter how much for and go out to shop for the next one … Obviously, in this case, the only way an investor can have exclusivity is to pay real well. That is, IP is to strip me, the author, of incentives. This is what it was invented for. It was invented by very clever people — I give them that.

All above thinking could be repeated almost word by word, while reckoning specifics of the subject, starting with the formula “all books are for all publishers” or analogous one for any art to bring up absolute questionableness of the very concept of copyright.

I realize the above pondering of possible dynamics of business, ideas, competition & investment may not sound very convincing. Maybe it sounds too simple, even primitive. But, surely, it sounds no more primitive and makes sense no less than the speculations about usefulness of the IP protection.

As for persuasiveness, it is important to take into account that pro IP speculations have been revolving around for more than 300 years and became plain habitual. Just because of that and that only said speculations widely perceived as reflecting reality. However, historically, when universal Royal printing privileges were introduced in the Great Britain for the first time in the middle of 17th century they were met with public outcry and had to be abolished. That is, in the beginning said bad habit didn’t exist and thus didn’t blur people’s eyes and minds yet. Copyrights were imposed on the British society as a means of censorship forcibly in the beginning of 18th century, and that was a very telling story with burned printing presses, cut off heads, and tenfold decrease of printing production in London overnight.

Since we turned to “facts,” a bit more to this end but in general terms. There are innumerable cases of specific use of IP to directly suppress new technologies and businesses out there. There are cases of totally legal IP protection which stir up public outrage due to their evident ugliness, even insanity. The talk around such cases is of “abuse” of, usually, copyrights but no more than that. Why? Due to said above habits. Copyrights became kind of holy cow but this cow is not holy.

On the other hand, there are telling cases of successful businesses based on unprotected ideas. They thrive despite commonly accepted rationale, law and practices behind IP. Moreover, a particular trend unfolds right in front of our eyes these days: Traditional businesses start moving their practices toward OBMs.

Having said the above I consider IP a social decease, call it IP rage. This is my take. Is it real or fantastic? But all the same, are pro IP speculations real or fantastic? An objective investigation to determine this never happened. Shouldn’t it be done? The issue might play a crucial role in the near future. You understand, I am talking not about just “future time” but about` “future socium I foresee and want,” the socium of creativity, real freedom, small groups, economy of free time, dialogue, individual self-determination & personalities.

The end

PS. The above is the 8th and the last part of the paper. The other parts are at:

Part 1. Free Market, Monopolies, Crude Communism: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/part-1-8c68d5030757?source=friends_link&sk=7613c0f6aadbb17b89a2b35a0b0195d9

Part 2. Ideals, Reality, Fantasy. Where to Go?: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/the-future-of-civilization-ii-1210d5a0db78?source=friends_link&sk=eded6e79c22067840822f958b3c939f8

Part 3. Ideal Solution, My Wishes, Problem Statement: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/the-future-of-civilization-iii-1548e4295352?source=friends_link&sk=d0f93e2c44f54b06de26480be38f3be2

Part 4. Economy of Free Time, Dialogue of Cultures, Etc.: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/future-of-civilization-iv-57ec15b2d7f0?source=friends_link&sk=041a84363733649a47b403fa4fde98a2

Part 5. Culture, Civilization & Automation: https://medium.com/where-does-this-world-go/the-future-of-civilization-5-4ea72ac2f705?source=friends_link&sk=1b8017e58afa7f33c5120dd73f879f27

Part 6. Socium of Small Groups, Socium of Freedom: https://medium.com/@anatolyvolynets/the-future-of-civilization-small-groups-1033297794c9?source=friends_link&sk=91dddf1ea25c823d33ee80fd5077dadd

Part 7. Transition from Present to Future: https://medium.com/@anatolyvolynets/the-future-of-civilization-vii-60e7220ae250

Part 8. The Disease of Intellectual Property