David,
Glad to hear you're not opposed to killing off the state-sponsored patent system!
The difference between tangible property and ideas is not arbitrary. If I take your property, you no longer have it. If I use your idea, OTOH, you
still have it.
Similarly with virtual reality, if you take my money, even though it's stored in a virtual bank, if I no longer have it to save or spend as I
wish, then this constitutes theft.
I don't recall DDF's position on IP.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael - I'm pretty sure I understand your position. My point was that you have arbitrarily decided that your concept of tangible property is protected by government and all others are not. That position in itself is ironically a monopoly of ideas, but that's another topic I suppose.
At the least, per Ron's point - in the case of patent protection, 'exclusivity' can be taken so I don't see any theoretical reason why it cannot be extended property rights, on the basis of your statement - 'i would no longer have it'. If an idea is truly novel, then no one else already has possession, so others would not lose anything by issuance of deed to one person.
My final point is that the definition of 'tangible' doesn't necessarily work in VR
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tangible
and considering this issue.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9189-game-company-sued-over-virtual-land-squabble.html
I won't beat this to death though. We can talk in real time if there is still interest.
cheers,
David
David,
My position is not as you state it.
I would be happy to discuss in person, as you suggest.
How about Sat. at 2:45 PM at 170 Hawthorne?
Warm regards, Michael