Using OS to prevent plagiarism
 

I'm referring here only to plagiarism of academic articles.
The problem:

1. Young researcher submits manuscript to a peer reviewed journal.
2. After a few weeks, she receives a plain rejection with a rather curt explanation of why the content is uninteresting and/or lacks enough merits for consideration.
3. A few months after, she reads an article developing the very same idea on her manuscript, under the name of one of the journal reviewers (=one of the household names in the area).

Possible open source solutions:

1. Keeping an official repository of manuscripts, independent from any particular journal, where writers can submit their initial writings, signed with their (registered) public keys.
2. Routine use of (both personally and institutionally) software like these:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/antiplagiarismc/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/plag...ce=recommended
http://sourceforge.net/projects/plag...ce=recommended
http://sourceforge.net/projects/aaps...ce=recommended

• If you know of any of these measures been implemented or in the process of being implemented anywhere, that would be very helpful.
• Also, if you have similar or better ideas, with the same gist, that would be really awesome.

2 words, Notary Public.

"Developing the very same idea" is neither plagiarism nor something that software could catch.

Very true, it is NOT plagiarism. However, the CONTEXT of the story includes:

1. Quote:

   the name of one of the journal reviewers

   (THE SAME PERSON WHO REVIEWED YOUR MANUSCRIPT)
2. Quote:

   A few months after

   (CLOSE TEMPORAL ASSOCIATION)

At least you should contemplate the possibility that the bastard:

1. had your paper rejected;
2. stole your idea.

Of course, all this could be due to pure chance :)

"A few months after?" How long do you think it takes someone to go from getting (or "stealing") an "idea", to "developing" it into a publication-ready paper (which, in this context, would obviously include doing their your own research), to submitting it, to having it accepted, to waiting for the journal issue to actually be published?

You specifically said "researcher", and attempting to research the same subject that you know someone else is researching is not a breach of ethics.

"Contemplate the possibility"? Sure you can contemplate the possibility that someone "stole" the "idea". You don't need software to help you contemplate.

I think this, to be able to prove actual plagiarism, is all that is needed. Well, any reliable witness or legally acceptable way to prove copyright would do.
However, as dugan points out that is only in the case of actual plagiarism and simply researching a topic further isn't likely to be in breach of any laws or codes.

Retain copyright to your work?
Patent your ideas?

One of life's lessons. People stink sometimes. You will find that everywhere there is some scum that will take an idea. Tell you it won't work and later get a bonus for turning it in. But I'm not mad still.

That stirs up a memory. Don't most universities and colleges take ownership of the copyright of any submitted theses as part of the terms and conditions of membership? In which case it's not plagiarism even if your work is submitted under another name -- it's capitalism.

I appreciate all the replies to my post. However, I sense that I was not explicit enough, and unwillingly stirred up some sensitive fibers there, which was not my intention.
Let me clarify a bit:

1. I believe in, and daily support, in more ways than you may think, the Open Source movement. I am quite aware of the history and problems associated with "Intellectual Property", and why that whole concept (at least in its current incarnation) sucks.
2. Having said that, academic careers (which involve grant funding) rely on the concept of authorship, and therefore its consistent attribution is important for any scholar these days.
3. The oversimplified "vignette" or "parable" that I used to formulate my question had the sole purpose of laying out the context ("environment") to give you guys a feeling of the human relevance for what is, essentially, a technical question. So, dugan, if you don't like "A few months after", use "A few time-units after" instead (although, it appears that, at this point you're going to bite my head off anyways since you've already decided that I'm one of the bad guys... you obviously misread my post).

@jefro, I appreciate your cute sarcasm :)
@273, I can see that you too have experience working in academic research which allows you to understand where I'm coming from... your insight is right on :)
@Habitual, your answer is the best, and makes it clear: nothing implemented, just the law of the jungle, as usual... good to know :)

I have to admit that I have not, at least directly. I just happen to spend some of my idle time reading and other parts of it talking to people.
I think you are talking about a distributed way of storing academic papers and the like so that somebody cannot take ownership later. I also think that that cannot be done as copyright is the only protection and that doesn't hold when it has to be handed over. To me that says that legal reform is needed not software -- you could prove that a professor made 20 million dollars from publishing a carbon copy of your paper but if your contract says that you gave away your copyright that means nothing.
(all simplified, of course)

Also, apart from surrendering your rights to the institution at the moment when you take your job, you also surrender them to the journal when you submit your paper. If, on top of that, you consider that usually the Principal Investigator does not usually do the job (or, oftentimes, doesn't even know the techniques employed), you can understand how the whole thing has been carefully rigged. The crown jewel is the copyright construct, to protect the plunderers, not the creators.

No, he's talking about something much less workable. He wants a database of papers that are submitted for publication, regardless of whether they are accepted or published.

He or she...
I don't disagree with you but I'm trying to envisage a working idea.

Well, the purpose of the repository would be to serve as evidence when you claim that someone at the journal you submitted your paper to stole it, right? If the repository is private, then its effectiveness for that would be greatly diminished, and if it's public, then submitting your paper to it would ensure that no publisher will ever look at your paper (because you've already published it).

I thought the purpose was that it was a distributed repository, which may work to confirm ownership. However, as you and others have mentioned that is likely not the solution.

The fact that you guys are even considering it as a legitimate problem, however, is encouraging.
I can hardly dare to propose any solution on this since, if you read my signature, I AM NOT AN IT PERSON. I always find it funny that people automatically assume that I'm one just because I use and advocate for Open Source software. I just wanted to find out if there was something out there to protect my rights (and those of thousands of scientific authors who are forced to work in a system that imposes the same mindset that closed source software companies impose).
The similarity of both (closed source companies and the academic establishment) is not a coincidence.
For instance, did you know that after a given research project is over, the "owners" of the project get to keep and hoard all the experimental data? Nobody else is allowed to look at the data if they want to come up with a different scientific approach; if you try, they will throw you in jail. If somebody else has a different idea for the same scientific problem, she will have to come up with a new project from scratch, with a new grant proposal. That means (for taxpayers) spending a few extra millions to produce the same data the previous guys have been hoarding under lock, just because the approach of the new guys to deal with such data is different. Whenever I've raised this problem in conferences/meetings, the response has ALWAYS been hostile; "intellectual property", I have been told.
There is probably a solution to protect the little man/woman, based on the principles of Open Source.

@dugan, before you continue teaching me how research works, or what an incompetent IT person I am (did you read my signature?), how about reading the following, so you can understand where I'm coming from?
Visiting Alexandre Grothendieck.
Don't forget to take your Ritalin; otherwise you'll miss everything after the first 10 words, and will surely come to the wrong conclusion about the page (and obviously about my post too).

Haven't gotten to that article yet, but what were these two quotes in response to?

If you feel that you've been misread, then you should take responsibility for that and try to communicate more clearly.

No surprise! The concept of intellectual property in all its forms is hostile to free and rational human thought, and those who live by it use aggressive hostility as their primary defense! "Intellectual property" must be maintained and practiced in secret because it cannot survive free and rational scrutiny!

I would suggest that the only way out of this mess is the abolition of ALL concept of intellectual property and the ultimate liberation of human thought from the various intellectual property priesthoods, such as the one you have encountered here.

Yes, that would certainly kill off the institutionalized flow of grant money and review as we now know it - but that is a good thing! It would be replaced by something much better, and free and "open"!

Then your original researcher would publish openly, it would be reviewed - AND ACKNOWLEDGED - openly, by anyone with an interest and knowledge of the subject, i.e. peers, and knowledge could then be advanced and built upon by ANYONE with an interest and understanding. New institutions would grow around that! Researchers and reviewers could actually become friends and colleagues based on mutual respect and admiration, instead of for-profit intellectual adversaries! And the miserable high priesthood of intellectual property could just go... wherever or whatever.

Intellectual property in all its forms is a harmful abomination on the backs of the human species, it must be abolished and avoided, not defended!

But your suggested solution is at odds with... itself! I think this is the source of your frustrations.

Consider that your problem is to "protect" the intellectual property of the original author, within a system which is built entirely on the idea of grabbing intellectual property for itself, administered and reviewed by individuals whose careers are ultimately driven by the "sale" via grants or tenure of whatever intellectual property they can amass and call their own. And you want to "protect" those poor innocents by "the principles of open source", which in the form of the ideals of FREEDOM of thought and information is the mortal enemy of intellectual property, ultimately within a venue (the legal system) which is itself a creature and tool of intellectual property law and overtly excludes non-legal arguments (i.e. principles of open source, whatever that is anyway)! Good luck!

If you are defending intellectual property "rights" then you are defending intellectual property law, and you must do that with intellectual property tools, i.e. intellectual property law itself, and so you should be looking for a legal solution, not a software solution, as others have said in so many words. Otherwise it will simply drive you crazy!

Thanks, astrogeek.
I think you're making some very sensible points here. I can see the contradiction.
It's clear to me now that the problem is much deeper than I had initially thought.
I will go back to the drawing table and will give it more serious thought.
You're a wise person, and I really appreciate your input on this.

I am curious, who will test that it is the same "idea". Is this to be software? If so, who could even write something to guage ideas? And, if you were to write a paper in English, and I were to steal it and rewrite (same idea) in French, or Russian, how would this be caught?

I agree plagiarism is wrong but how would even a repository help? Who is to search it?

I hope my comments can get you to consider that the actual problem is not so much "unfair application" of the concepts of intellectual property, but rather it is the existence of the concept of intellectual property.

It is so deeply ingrained (literally institutionalized) in our society that it is difficult for most people to even consider that it should not be so! Instead we all run an endless treadmill attempting to find the correct balance or application and never seriously consider the actual nature of this particular beast!

The problem that you pose is just your personal trip around the exercise wheel!

The idea that one person can own (control) a thought, or a bit of knowledge, pattern, idea, etc., etc... to the exclusion of all other humans is an obscenity that should not be mentionable in polite company! Instead it has become an all encompassing restraining principle in our present society, one which operates to the detriment of all intelligence and advancement.

I referred to those who practice it as a priesthood because they operate like one, and the church of intellectual property is nothing different than a religion, and a very rich and powerful one at that! You just have to believe in it... reinforced by constant reminders that the sky would fall without it!

But a much more beautiful, forward-looking, innovative world of peace and knowledge, freely shared, exists outside its doors! Step out and look around! The sky won't really fall...

Thanks for your undeserved praise, blushingly accepted!

it is unfortunately very frequent.


There is nothing to do about it in terms of law, since you gave them with your agreement kinda all rights (exaggeratedly said) while submitting your manuscript


It is like facebook, they own you !

Hi,

in many fields it is standard to submit to a preprint server at the same time (or before) submitting to a journal. See for example http://arxiv.org/

Evo2.

It sounds quite like "lowering taxes for rich people creates jobs"/"raising taxes on rich people means they can create less jobs for the poor" type of argument.

There's nothing wrong with the idea that a person can own/control the product of his work.

What's wrong, and what would really be detrimental to intelligence and advancement is the idea that people who actually produce intellectual works wouldn't have legal instruments to allow them to make a worthy profit from it. Instead, their work being "no one's creation", being "free" to generate profits only to those who already have superior financial resources, who wouldn't owe a dime to the "nobody" who made it all possible.

I'm not sure I understand the point? Who would you be showing this evidence to? The police?

Yes they stole the idea, and that sucks, and they're dickheads...but that's it, it's not illegal. You didn't patent the idea, you have no legal rights to it. You submitted it for publication, which means you forfeited your copyright ownership, and if the person just stole the idea and researched it on their own then there's no plagiarism at work either. If there's no legal wrong-doing, then what purpose does "evidence" serve?

I'm not sure you could even claim copyright over a research topic or idea anyway?

Ok, but people have to eat. That means they need to make money. If a person can't make money off of their work, then chances are they won't perform the work. Why would somebody spend days/weeks/years developing a new idea just to have somebody snatch it and create something sell-able from it the instant they tell the world? If you get rid of intellectual property, patents, copyright protection, etc., then you get rid of the incentive for innovation.

What you really need is for the world to change into a place where everybody (EVERYBODY) can live comfortably, with plenty of food, a roof over their heads, and all of the amenities they need for free (communism?), leaving individuals to pursue their interests solely for the good of society. Until that happens, you need IP, patents, copyrights, etc. in order to incentivize innovation.

The problem is that what constitutes plagiarism is completely subjective and full benefit of the doubt must be given to the offending party, which is not always the case. This means that people might be more reluctant to create content and propagate ideas because legal action can be used to leverage you into submission. This is especially true when megacorporations decide to pick on individuals. I'm not an expert on legal systems everywhere, but I know that this is a huge problem in the United States, because corporations can almost literally sue you for anything, no matter how absurd, and you are forced to settle because they have virtually unlimited funds, you (probably) do not. I recall hearing about genetically modified soy beans being patented by some company which are presumably so superior to normal soy beans that a small time farmer that doesn't use the modified ones stands absolutely no chance to compete because his costs are higher. Worse yet, this company has an absolute monopoly, so they have essentially complete power to set the prices for licenses which I took to believe are constantly rising. How do they know people are using them? They have a huge amount of investigators on their payroll whose sole job it is to check these farms for the patented soy beans. If any are found they are forced to pay for a license to use them on threat of legal action. Oh, did I tell you that the spores or whatever are carried by the wind and can (and do) land on farms that otherwise cultivate completely natural soy? It doesn't matter if it's a single beanstalk, you will be forced to pay for a license or you will go to court. You would probably win if you had an endless amount of money, but you will most likely go bankrupt before you even get to defend yourself. The only people that can fight back are big time celebrities and so on.

So, it is very dangerous. Yeah, you might argue that they have a right to patent their modified soy bean to protect their interests, after all if anybody could have used it without penalty from the get-go then maybe they would never have taken off as a company. Fair point I guess, I'm not really interested in discussing that, but the point is that they are not the underdog anymore. They are just another amoral company that is forcing people into submission, not unlike the mafia offering "protection." RMS has some interesting ideas about patents relating to software; I haven't watched the entire video yet but agree with the Free Software people or not, it's hard to argue that patents, while a good idea, are really fundamentally broken and can be quite disgusting. Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiKRt3-FbM0

I made the exact same point. xri's response was to tell me that I read it wrong, that he was offended that I would teach him how research works, that I obviously thought that he was "one of the bad guys", and that I should take ritalin!

Seriously, xri, since you say you know nothing about IT, let me tell you what you need to know. What you need to know is: you need to come up with a working example. In IT and development, we have a special word for working examples. We call them "use cases", and we design solutions around solving them.

When it was pointed out that your examples did not work, you should have fixed them or come up with better ones. Instead, you acted offended and defensive and told me to change "months" to "time units" (which we both know doesn't work).

That would be Monsanto. Some info on it below.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/mon...ving-seeds.htm

Something more relevant to Linux users which shows how ridiculous copyright, patent and trademark ownership can be:

http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/107

Huh? I really don't see how that relates, explain please.

With respect to "own", did I say otherwise? Absolutely, each sentient breather of the common air should be the sole original owner of the products of their individual work! That is the foundation of pretty much all human activity.

The difficulty is when you extend the idea of property ownership to include thoughts. "Ideas", thoughts, all knowledge, truth, facts, understanding, patterns, logical constructs, sequences, etc. etc... i.e. ideas, have an existence independent of any individual who may think them (i.e. discover them) at any given time and cannot be claimed as "property". They remain the exclusive property of an individual only so long as they disclose them to no one else! Extending artificial legal monopoly on a thought to one individual over all others is a horrendous idea - an intellectual obscenity!

With respect to "control", as distinct from the natural control that comes with ownership, we must ask, how far, how long, how much, what form... that is really a very nebulous concept! "Control" is the devil in the details!

Well, again you must put some definitions to the following...

"produce intellectual works" - Simply think a thought or produce some useful product from it? Actually produce or simply buy a monopoly of control?

"legal instruments" - Honest, fair profit comes by exchange of your product for something else, ususally money, of equal value. Profiting by legal instruments is inherently unfair to those from whom the profit is extracted as they get nothing of equal value. That is the essence of artificial monopolies. Who has any moral right to grant such a thing!

"allow" - Do you mean facilitate, guarantee, give preference...?

"worthy profit" - Ah! now the meat of the matter! Define please, "worthy" and "profit". In whose eyes? At whose cost? On what terms?

That is a "Sky is falling!" reaction, and quite a stretch from anything I've said or implied, so once more I'll have to ask just what you mean by that.

But take this case, real enough, nothing cleverly contrived here...

Fred and Barney are both smart, industrious guys who do not know each other but are alive on the planet at the same time.

Fred and Barney have a common interest and study the same books in their respective libraries.

Within a short time of each other, Fred and Barney have similar ideas within their subject of interest.

Both are very motivated to turn their idea into a reality and work very hard in their respective garages to that end. The ideas and resources are similar so it takes about the same time.

Fred hires a lawyer and patents the idea, while Barney who has less money decides to put it all into tooling for his gizmo, producing a better gizmo in the end.

They both hit the market about the same time and both are making good profits - until Fred sues Barney for infringement of "his" intellectual property!

Fred uses a portion of his profits to hire more lawyers and "defend his rights" against everyone else who had the same, admittedly obvious idea. Fred shifts production offshore, quality falls and the same crappy product is the only one available for the next 20 years...

Poor Barney loses everything and dies a disillusioned alcoholic...

Fred and Barney both had the same good idea and worked equally hard to make it a reality. Both were successful! The only difference was that Fred hired leaglly licensed thugs to knee-cap the competition while Barney simply expected a fair (worthy) return on his work...

Now, tell me again, how did this "protect" the little guy?
Why was Fred "worthy" of return on his labor while Barney was not?
Why was Fred entitled to ALL the profit while Barney was entitled to none?

Answer: Fred paid for the blessing of the high priests of intellectual property, Barney was an infidel...

As I have pointed out before, it is only a religion, you just have to believe in it because it cannot survive closer scrutiny. The very official, very profitable Church of Intellectual Property.

But the sky won't really fall without it...

If you really want to understand how it works, here is an excellent book on the subject, free to read online, or buy in print:

Against Intellectual Monopoly
by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine

First of all, why would you think that people would not eat (i.e. be able to make money off their work) without intellectual property "protection"? Can you show some evidence for that?

Actually, this is a commonly held but false conception and is really just another version of the "Sky will fall without intellectual property!" mantra that most modern humans have been trained to recite.

But it didn't work out so well for Barney (see previous post). The fruits of his innovation and hard labor were literally taken from his mouth and given to someone else, so he gave up and turned to the bottle. (Not an entirely fictional example either, in case you care to know - great violence can be done to men's lives by such legal injustice, and for what...)

The truth is actually the opposite of what you have posited: patents, copyrights - all forms of intellectual property "protection" can be easily shown to stifle innovation, discouraging development because of, or simply from fear of infringement of some patent.

For a very good introduction to how this actually works, read just the first chapter, or two of the book I also linked in the previous post, Against Intellectual Monopoly.

You really should read the book, and the multitude of other resources available. But please at least consider this set of excerpts from chapter 1, concerning James Watt's steam engine patents:

There is plenty of actual historical fact here to at least give you pause to consider!

But again, that simply is not true. I have no desire to get into a deck washing contest, but I would suggest that you review whatever facts you have at hand, and their sources, and try to honestly gauge harmful effects against any perceived good done.

On a level playing field, in the absence of artificial monopolies, the profit advantage goes to first to market, and best product in its class - that is, the incentive really is to the innovative, and to the best!

But as I ask you to consider, it does not incentivize innovation! That simply is not true.

But more importantly, and this really is the main point: attempting to treat innovative ideas and thoughts as property, intellectual property, is a major cause of massive injustice and discouagement for the vast majority of the species, all for the benefit of a very few. It is itself a major cause of economic injustice, the great disparity in distribution and control of wealth and production, and a similarly major roadblock for those who would improve their own lot and that of others.

Differences in application of intellectual property law, use or abuse, is literally the difference between a Bill Gates and an Aaron Schwartz.

I am not proposing that abolition of intellectual property would immediately bring about that imaginary utopia. But I guarantee it would eliminate the injustices caused by it, and create the only genuinely level playing field for all, not just those who already have their wealth - and it would be a big first step in the right direction!

I think that the fair minded people (meaning not the protection racket thugs) who defend intellectual property tend to be those who make their money from things like niche software development and music creation. It's those small businesses for whom the abolition of intellectual property would mean an end to business. I don't think there are any solutions acceptable to that group of people.
So I am torn on the matter as I think intellectual property is a fallacy but I realise that its destruction would mean a lot of people having to join large corporations or compete with them and change their business models. Perhaps that is the difficult cost of something which would otherwise improve the world?

@ BridgeTheMasterBuilder

I had intended to respond to you in our other shared thread with more recommended reading on Unix.

Instead I spent more than my alotted LQ time writing my responses in this thread - time well spent I hope!

So, while I must leave now, let me recommend that you add the book I have twice cited above to your list - time well spent!

Against Intellectual Monopoly
by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine

But I would suggest once more, this is the "Sky will fall without intellectual property!" response.

To be sure, some business models would have to change! But all for the better!

I think the major benefit would be to the independent and small business because they would be instantly free of threats and abuses by the too-big-to-fight corporate interests and for the first time free to market their own ideas and innovations without fear! The major difference would be that they too, would need to give up the concept of "I thought of it first! It is mine and mine alone!".

Instead of going out of business, I think we would see a huge shift to the independents and away from the monolithic corporate overlords. I would expect a literal explosion of innovation, fresh ideas, rapid advancement of knowledge and technology, and greatly expanded economic activity.

Instead of profit by killing your competition, I think a much healthier climate of competition by making it better with cheerful acknowledgment of the accomplishments of others, would evolve. What we used to call "good sportsmanship".

To use an example of good sportsmanship currently in the news, like the Brazilian fans after their defeat by Germany yesterday... at the end of the game they stood and applauded their winning opponents... When our profits no longer come at the expense of others, I think we will find that we recover the more natural human responses of empathy, respect for others and the ability to applaud even those who got to the goal line before us.

So, in that world, why would I spend a year of my working life innovating, for example, a better vacum cleaner. Why would I work on a niche market piece of software?
Of course, software will always end up being created as problems arise which need to be solved but the whole model would change and some business models would just disappear. Long term, of course, other models would survive but short term you'd have a lot of collapsed small businesses.
Then there are authors, particularly those of fictional works, most of them would not be able to make money from their craft. Nor would composers of all but one-time-use music.
This isn't a "sky is falling!" doom and gloom profecy just pointing out that not everybody who relies upon intellectual property for a living is a theiving parasite and the little man has to be looked after.

You're focusing too heavily on patents stifling development on a product after the product has been brought to market. And that's absolutely true, once a product has been brought to market, patents stifle and slow down innovation, you'll get no argument there. But that's not the issue at hand here. What you really need to be asking yourself is, "Would that product have even been invented or brought to market in the first place were it not for the protection offered by the patent system?". I would argue that the vast majority of products we enjoy today would not.

I have a couple of patents (well, my company holds them and I'm named as the inventor), mostly dealing with unique data processing algorithms that allow new measurements, or ways of making existing measurements in new/unique situations. We even have a product based around one of these, which is capable of making measurements in situations that no competitor can even dream of. I can tell you right now, with 100% certainty, that if the protection offered by the patent system did not exist, my boss would never have OK'd the $500k+ R&D investment required to develop that technology, and that product would not exist today.



Your scenario with Fred and Barney is a cute one, but unrealistic. The FAR more likely scenario is the following:

Barney is a smart, industrious guy with interest in a unique subject. He goes to the library and spends his time studies books on this subject, and becomes quite well versed in it. He becomes so well versed, that he comes up with a unique idea.

Barney is very motivated to turn his idea into a reality and works very hard in his garage to that end.

Barney doesn't have a lot of money, but he spends what he has on tooling for his gizmo, producing the best gizmo he can.

Barney's gizmo hits the market, and is well received. In fact it's so well received, that Fred purchases one in the store and thinks to himself, "Why is this device so expensive? I can build it cheaper".

Fred spends a week figuring out how the device works, and then he approaches a manufacturer to have it made. Fred picks a quality manufacturer, maybe even the same one as Barney, after all he wants to keep standards high.

Since Fred only invested a week of his time, he can afford to sell his knockoff gizmo for only two cents above cost, and he does so at the exact same stores where Barney is selling his! Customers who go to the store see two of what look and feel like the exact same product, only one of them is half the price. Naturally, they pick the cheaper option, and Barney gets cut out of the loop.

The only way Barney can compete is to lower the price of his gizmo to match the price of Fred's, and even then he only gets half the market share. But that price is too low, two cents profit can't pay back Barney's 401k that he had to borrow against to fund the development. It can't pay off the third mortgage Barney had to take out on his home because he spent three years of his life working full time in his garage trying to make his gizmo the best it can be.

Barney tries to sell his gizmo for the price he needs to sell it at to pay back his loans, but everybody buys Fred's gizmo instead. After a year, Barney is forced to declare bankruptcy.

Ten years later, Barney, still being an expert in his field, has another idea for a gizmo that he would like to bring to market. Haunted by his experience last time, he decides to ignore it and continue working in the coal mine instead.




This is a very realistic scenario, in fact it already happens today in places where patent protection is not well enforced. A company develops a product, sends it for manufacture in China, and the factory makes a few extra and sells them on street corners and black markets under a different name for a fraction of the cost. If these counterfeit goods were allowed to be sold in stores right alongside the original, nobody would buy the original, and the companies developing original products would go out of business. All you'd be left with is the factories churning out the same crap over and over again as cheaply as they can.

That's a nice sentiment, but it's not true. After decades of international trade and overseas manufacturing, one thing has become increasingly clear. People do not buy the first or the best (well some do, but they're a minority), people buy what's convenient and cheap. Just look at the decline of Mom & Pop stores and the explosion of Walmart and fast food restaurants. US manufacturing has all but disappeared, production has been moved to sweat shops in third world countries where it can be made as cheaply as possible, regardless of the quality, environmental impacts, or social impacts.

Ever hear people say that [insert any product here] isn't built like it used to? It's true. Quality and reliability have plummeted because that's not what people buy, people buy what's cheap. When it breaks in two years, they just buy another one. The companies that put their heart and soul into their products trying to make it the best it can be get under-priced by the sweat shop factories. Some have managed to stick around, but most have gone under. The ones that have stuck around, are usually the ones with patents on their products. The market has spoken...people want cheap, damn the consequences.

The same thing would happen without patent protection, but worse. Somebody would develop an amazing new product, and within a month somebody would rip it off and sell it for a few cents over cost. Driving the original developer out of the market. Keep it up for too long, and people will stop developing amazing new products...

I would LOVE to be proven wrong here, but I just don't see it. Patent law, copyright protection, intellectual property, etc., as I see it, is the only thing standing in the way of this happening on an even larger scale than it is already.

I don't think this is a sky-is-falling response, it's just an observation about humanity. If there is money to be made and no law to stop him, somebody will stab you and leave you bleeding on the side of the road without a moment's hesitation. Fred will rip off Barney's invention, cut him out of the market, and leave him to die without a second thought. Until you find a way to stop these people from being evil, you can't abolish the only laws that are keeping them in check.

Now I'm not saying the patent system is perfect, it's not. When Apple can patent rounded corners, and Amazon can patent taking pictures of things on a stool with lights, something is clearly broken. But the solution is to fix the problem, not to do away with patent law entirely. One of the BIG problems is the length of its effect. 30 years is way too long, especially in the current era of rapid development. It should be more like 5 years...give the developer time to re-coup their investment, and then let everyone else have at it.

In my admittedly unseasoned opinion this is the crux of the issue. I don't think you can do away with intellectual property (a term I do not like by the way) entirely, but it cannot be allowed to overstep its bounds either. Also, sort of related but in my humble opinion, copyright should also be automatically forfeit upon the death of all pertinent parties. It is utterly shameful to see works that rightfully belong to the public being held hostage by the estate of whoever created it or worse yet having third parties that were not involved purchase the rights and extending the copyright (which to the best of my knowledge can be done indefinitely in some situations.) I have aspirations of becoming a composer (of classical music - which thankfully is a potentially sustainable career where I live) and I know that the first thing I'm going to put in my will is a clause releasing any works I may have created into the public domain (or even sooner where possible.)

However, as a proponent of the free market (not to an extremist degree) I think even 5 years may be too long. Giving the developer a break is all well and good, but you need to take the consumer's interest into consideration as well. I don't know about other people but I don't necessarily buy whatever is cheapest with no regard for quality, but if somebody is incapable of competing in a fair economic environment then unfortunately they deserve to go out of business. Especially if another manufacturer can match your product while also incurring lower costs, to say nothing of objectively better products at the same or lower cost (or maybe even higher.) It's tough, but that's just how it is.

To show how messed up this concept can get*, take a look at my country's (Iceland) agricultural sector. As you might know there is a great deal of controversy regarding the country's relationship with the European Union. One of the main arguments against EU membership that you hear brought up all the time is the fact that Icelandic agriculture would essentially vanish because it is not even remotely competitive with EU prices. It is already heavily subsidized, some figures saying that subsidies comprise as much as 75% of farmers' income. Nationalism and general stupidity makes people think that Icelandic meat in particular is somehow better than foreign meat (it's not) and that it must be protected at all costs. There are certainly valid reasons to oppose the EU, but this is not one of them. Iceland just isn't suited for agriculture and it's not fair to punish the citizens in this way (due to import duties and tolls etc. it's not cheaper to import meat yourself - intentionally designed to artificially increase demand for domestic products.) If better products are available at a lower cost, it is immoral to deny access to them. Yes, I am well aware that Icelandic farmers would be out of work, but so be it - you lost.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

*It's of course not an identical scenario but the basic idea is the same.

But that's the problem, it's not a fair economic environment when Company A had to incur the entire R&D cost to bring that product to market while Company B gets to reap all of the benefits and charge as little as possible. Company B had no R&D cost, so selling the product for 2 cents over cost is 2 cents of profit. Company A can't charge 2 cents over cost, because it would never reimburse them for the [possibly] millions of dollars they had to sink into R&D to develop it.

Product development and manufacturing is a "pay first, get paid second" game. If you do away with patent protection (in cases where the patents are justified, not like the patent trolls that are plaguing the industry right now), then you eliminate the "get paid" second half of the deal, and all you're left with is "pay first, bankruptcy", which isn't a sustainable business policy ;)


You may be right, 5 years might still be too long, I was just throwing that out there. I don't know where the "sweet spot" is, it could be more like 2 years, but it's definitely shorter than 30 years.

I know, that part of your post wasn't lost on me. As I said, you can't do away with them entirely I don't think.

Oh I know, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just clarifying a point.

Maybe the fixed length is the problem? Maybe when a company/individual files a patent, they should be required to file all relevant documentation about the costs required to develop that technology. Then there could be quarterly reports/audits to monitor the profit made from the sales of any product based on that technology. When their profit off of the technology exceeds the initial investment by, say, 20% (or the business goes under), then the patent expires. Of course you could have a ~5 year cap on it as well, to prevent failed implementations from locking out development by other parties for too long.

It would be difficult to implement correctly and probably very difficult to police (companies lying about initial development costs or profits), but it might result in the best of both worlds. If done correctly, easy no-brainer patents would expire almost immediately since they took no effort to develop. Large developments and highly profitable patents would expire almost immediately as well since the company would quickly recoup their investment. The only patents that would stick around for an extended period of time are the ones that took a lot of development and produce little profit, in which case, why would other parties be interested anyway?

Actually no, I am mostly focusing on the injustice inherent in the concept of intellectual property.

I also included the excerpts from the linked book (sorry if that was too long...) to illustrate that economic and incentive arguments in favor of intellectual property, largely have no basis in fact.

Well, as I said, business models based on intellectual property concepts would necessarily have to change - and that would include development models as well. But it is by no means a given that development would not take place! (The sky will fall argument again...)

In fact, I think the winning arguments, and my own experience (including my own IP-free development of a few specialized measurement systems, oddly enough) all say that it would increase and improve... but there is little point in engaging in that deck washing contest I mentioned, so I'll just observe:

But back to my own main point...

No. It was the actual, real destruction of a man's work, his future and eventually his life, due entirely to the inherent injustice of intellectual property law. Nothing cute about it. I watched it happen.

And the real horror is that it was not unique or anomalous.

I also added the more public examples of those who gain vastly out of proportion to any value they produce (Bill Gates) and those who suffer unendurable consequences vastly out of proportion to any harm they might have done (Aaron Schwartz), as examples of the inherent injustice of the concept of intellectual property.

But those don't seem to be of much concern to anyone when there is profit to be made. A very sad commentary on the current state of the species...

Could it be that you are more cynical than even I am! ;)

I have more confidence and hope in the human species that that! And my experience has been much better than that when people are able to make choices and are allowed to hope in their own futures, they are better than that.

The difficulty is that all those examples you cite are how people react when forced to work within an economic system that deprives them largely of hope, produces gain only at someone else's loss, and leaves them little choice other than dog-eat-dog, lowest cost is all and damn the consequences! Intellectual property law is a huge contributor to that environment.

Change that system, and you change people's perceptions, reactions and expectations. One injustice that goes uncorrected, gives birth to a dozen new ones.

Well, I repeat, it was intellectual property law that provided the means for Fred to leave Barney to die. It was intellectual property law that gave birth to this particular evil, and its acceptance by all those around them that sanctioned it. The very concept is a gross evil. Without that concept, Barney would have enjoyed the fruits of his labor, as would Fred have done too.

But more importantly, your statement, "If there is money to be made and no law to stop him, somebody will stab you and leave you bleeding on the side of the road without a moment's hesitation", deserves a comment.

When two strangers meet in a dark alley, or along some untravelled road, it is not the local code of law that mediates the encounter! It is only what is in their hearts, and by that I mean mainly that it is whatever respect they have for others, nothing else, that determines the outcome.. Among most, when in doubt, respect shown to another is almost universally acknowledged and returned despite barriers of language and culture.

The only people that do real harm, and leave you bleeding in the ditch, are those who think their actions have the sanction of some law or social code - they are not restrained by respect and are usually motivated and enabled by profit of some form. The more "lawful" their standing in their own eyes, the more dangerous they are!

As a simple principle of human nature then, this is another argument for doing away with arbitrary law that gives one human advantage over another.

We really must learn to live by mutual respect, and such law as we must have must show that respect and do real justice - for all - or we don't have a hope in hell as a species! It must be respect and regard for justice that stands between us and all those evils, not corporate law (or Ferengi Rules of Acquisition)!

If we can learn respect, and value justice, every other good, including guaranteed fair profit, will follow!

What about the injustice in people stealing and making money off of someone else's work, with absolutely no legal consequences?

That's not what those excerpts say. That quote only focuses on the harm done by the patent after the product was introduced, it says nothing about whether or not the product would have even been introduced in the first place were it not for patent law. It does mention it at the end, but doesn't go into any detail. That is the other side of the argument, that you seem to be ignoring.

Change to what? How do you propose companies get around the problem? Let's take a quick scenario. Company A has a great idea for a new invention. They invest a million dollars into R&D to develop the product, all with zero return. They release the product, at this point they are MASSIVELY in the hole on the project. On release day, Company B buys one, reverse engineers it, and starts manufacturing their own. Their total investment is $10k. They label it the same and sell it in the same stores as the original for half the price. People buy the cheaper one, Company A doesn't make enough profit off of the device to recoup their initial investment, and goes out of business.

Now which part of this scenario would change, and to what?
Would Company A not invest a million dollars into the product? Then how would it get made?
Would somebody else not rip it off? That's putting way too much faith in humanity, there will always be people ready and willing to rip someone off to make a quick buck.
Would people not buy the cheaper option? That's putting way too much faith in the general public.

Just saying "business models need to change" is easy, but what do you propose they change to? How do you get around the problem? The multi-billion dollar counterfeit industry is evidence enough that this IS a problem that does need addressing. The solution for basically every government on the planet is the same, IP and patent law. If you've got something better, then throw it out there.


I don't. I'm not saying everybody is evil, certainly the majority aren't, but evil people ARE out there, you can't just ignore them. All it takes is one to break down the entire system you're proposing.

I just think that's human nature. People were around for hundreds/thousands of years without IP law, and there was still war, theft, starvation, and power-hungry people eager to capitalize on the situation.

Exactly. You're not just talking about removing IP, you're talking about changing all of humanity! Good luck with that!

How? There was no IP law in that scenario.

I disagree completely. This kind of evil has been around since the beginning of humanity, it has nothing to do with IP law. IP law was introduced to help keep this kind of evil, which existed LONG before, in check.

And the vast majority of encounters would be perfectly fine, but all it takes is one...

I don't see how your "solution" fixes this? Those people will still be out there, harming others and trying to increase their own standing. There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots", and the "have nots" will work to get whatever it is that the "haves" have. Most people do it in socially acceptable forms, some people do not. Laws exist to keep these people in check.

You'll get no argument from me there, but the problem is we're not there yet. That mutual respect doesn't exist to the level that would be required to do away with IP law. If we were at that point then there wouldn't be any need for ANY laws, or police, or prisons, or security, or encryption, or locks/keys. Are you suggesting we dismantle the entire legal system and hope for the best???


You seem to think that laws are creating the problems, and if you just get rid of them everything would be fine. That line of thinking is backwards. Laws didn't come first, evil came first, and laws were created to stop the evil, including IP law.

In the beginning there were people. People decided that it would be to everyone's benefit if they formed societies. Everything was fine in the society, but then one person got jealous of what someone else had. Who knows, maybe Joe had his shack on a great spot on the side of the river, and John couldn't find a spot as good, so John killed Joe and took his shack. Everyone in the society got together and decided that they couldn't function as a society with this kind of behavior going on, so they made a law, "Don't kill people", formed a police department to enforce the law, and started collecting a small tax from all of the residents to pay for it. Then somebody else did something evil, and another law was created, and another, and another. After a few thousand years, you have modern day society, and now you're saying that the reason people are evil is BECAUSE of the laws? If that's true, then why were these laws ever created in the first place?

If they are stealing someone else's product, there are adequate laws against theft to prosecute them under.

But if they have only had the same thought, or even reproduced something based on a thought someone else had earlier - that is not theft... that is the point.

I know, I hear the howls! Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, and it may be a serious knot in someone's panties, but it must not be considered a crime! The crime is considering a thought to be property! Eliminating the concept of intellectual "property" eliminates that crime.

As I mentioned in an earlier post with regard to the broken academic review systems which are built around intellectual property concepts - existing models built on those concepts will no longer function. But new and better institutions based on equity, respect, justice will emerge to replace them.

How do you protect profits to cover R&D costs? You don't! Why should you!

Without intellectual property law holding everyone hostage, company A will adapt their business model to compete in a level marketplace. Their products will be developed and priced according to their merit and value. If they decide to invest a million bucks into development, they give it their best shot and take their chances! They succeed or they go out of business, like everybody else.

And it is worth pointing out, they can still make proprietary products! If they have a killer idea that has not entered anyone else's head yet they can adequately black box the essential parts, or license the product without selling it... they simply cannot prohibit the other 3 billion humans on the planet from thinking about it and doing it themselves!

Look, obviously I don't have all the answers, but I have many years experience in my engineering profession, including lots and lots of development specifically avoiding IP concepts - full disclosure at every step... it works, better! But more importantly, it creates wealth without relying on someone else's loss to offset it... THAT is the point!

<30 years ago the software companies were screaming that free software would destroy the industry! Releasing the source code would be the end! The sky would fall!

It didn't and you and I are carrying on this conversation in a forum that exists only because of free software, typing our replies on systems running free software on liberated hardware (at least in my case), both of which are many times better than could have been imagined 30 years ago! Whole billion dollar companies and new business models have emerged around nominally free software! It is a proven model and it works!

In a time not so long ago, human beings could be considered property. Whole industries were built around the concept! It too, was codified in laws and was more or less accepted by everyone where it was practiced. It was called chattel slavery.

It worked by controlling the production of the owned slaves for the benefit, or profit of the owner. It was law, it was legal.

When some became a little uncomfortable with the thought of what that really meant, and movement toward abolishing it began, those companies and interests that relied on it said the same thing - How will we profit? How will our interests be protected? How will we recoup our investment?

When that particular bad law was abolished many of those interests went out of business - and rightfully so. Some adapted and survived, in very different form.

The business models changed... radically, but for the better.

Chattel slavery law worked by delivering the production of the slaves to the marketplace and returning the profit to the owner. Intellectual property law works by restraining the production of potential competitors from the marketplace, for the benefit of the "owner". They are both property law and both are equally vile concepts.

Well, we have to start somewhere...

I am sure someone said the same thing about slavery.

I disagree.

Isn't this a contradiction to your previous point? What would you say if another company snuck into their headquarters (physically or through the web) and stole their proprietary designs so they could make their own? After all, it's just an idea, they can't own it, right? So it's not being stolen, it's being liberated! So you believe in proprietary designs, but only until somebody else finds out about it, at which point it becomes fair game and no foul play has occurred? What do you think about NDAs? What about people violating those NDAs? Are they just liberating more free ideas?


They're not even remotely similar. Ideas aren't alive, they don't have feelings, thoughts of their own, and they're not being forced to do something against their will. You're comparing apples to, well...slavery.

It's worth noting that slavery did not disappear, it's still alive and well. It has simply moved out of the limelight to third world countries. Slaves are still out there, producing cheaper-than-dirt products, which are then sold in stores in first world countries for cheap, where it undercuts the competition and leads to respectable businesses filing bankruptcy and other, less respectable businesses thriving off of the misfortune of others.

Well, except that gaining illegitimate access to somebody's belongings and taking them is literal theft. Let's say the idea is recorded in a written document or some other medium. If you "sneak" into corporate headquarters and take an irreplaceable material object you are breaking potentially a whole slew of laws. Where IP laws are most appropriate in my opinion is in cases where material things are copied, not taken. That's where you need the law to take abstracts like ideas into account for the discussion to make sense. It is still unambiguous theft (or copyright infringement or whatever) and I don't think anybody can argue that point.

It becomes less clear when you cannot prove a link between the plaintiff and the defendant. Patent laws introduce literal ownership over ideas, or rather, the ideas of ideas, which makes purely coincidental concurrent development impossible. I do not think it's fair that whoever gets to the patent office first has carte blanche to oppress anybody who has the same idea as they did. There should always be a presumption of innocence. You want to accuse someone of stealing from you, you have to demonstrate when, how and why. If you can't - then as far as the law is concerned that person didn't steal from you. This is the predominant legal model in the West for good reason - to protect innocent people. It means that more guilty people get off scot-free, but I think everybody can agree it's a fair trade-off. Ideally a well funded special court should replace the patent system and blanket IP laws instead of treating everybody as if they were guilty by default.

You can of course not always prove that someone stole from you and it will lead to good people being shafted by the system, but it takes power away from entities that really can't be trusted with it and people will have a fighting chance when they believe their ideas have been stolen. I'm not saying this is necessarily a golden solution, in fact I don't think such a thing exists or we wouldn't be talking about this. It doesn't take into account every side of the issue, but for unannounced/unreleased projects I think it is an ok start.