Nieyli/Priano log

Makoto Priano > Belatedly, pilots, the issue is that the doctrine comes from an associate of the Consortium; out of respect for his work, and desiring to be involved in the testing, we've respected his wishes on proprietary information.
Ria Nieyli > How progressive.
Makoto Priano > Intellectual property remains property. Property rights, well... come now.
Ria Nieyli > I staunchly disagree.
Ria Nieyli > The concept of intelectual property impedes progress.
Ria Nieyli > For example, if you come up with a product, and nobody else can copy your product.
Ria Nieyli > Why would you improve it?
Ria Nieyli > There's no competition on the market and people will buy your thing anyway.
Ria Nieyli > It kills innovation.
Ria Nieyli > It's simply bad business practice.
Makoto Priano > The concept of property is foundational. Intellectual property, likewise. In your example, a competitor must come up with a competing product that merits market share; control of proprietary methods or designs is reward for successful intellectual--
Makoto Priano > --investment.
Makoto Priano > So, I say: competition is needed. However, simply copying success is itself not competition, but mimicry. It is also not going to result in progression.
Ria Nieyli > Competition is impossible when you're arbitrarily banned from competing!
Ria Nieyli > Of course that it will result in progress.
Ria Nieyli > You can't simply copy a thing, you need to improve it.
Ria Nieyli > Then the other party needs to improve their own product as well.
Ria Nieyli > And at some point someone will think of an entirely new product which will make previous versions obsoloete.
Ria Nieyli > And so on and so on.
Ria Nieyli > That's the basis that capitalism is built upon!
Makoto Priano > Reverse engineering, or developing an alternative method to create a product, are both completely legitimate. The distinction between intellectual property infringement and reverse engineering are of course matters for a court. Else, why would we--
Makoto Priano > --need the CBT?
Makoto Priano > However, that marks the point. Intellectual property should be maintained to prevent bald-faced copying or passing off shoddy replicas as an original. Reverse engineering and product development...? Essential to a healthy business ecosystem.
Ria Nieyli > The consumer will reject a shoddy replica.
Ria Nieyli > Otherwise, the replica would not be shoddy.
Ria Nieyli > And, if I can do something as good as someone else, what right have they to refuse me?
Makoto Priano > It all depends on method and manner.
Ria Nieyli > Let's say that the method is similar.
Ria Nieyli > The product is functionally the same, yet I choose to incorporate higher quality materials, making the item more durable.
Ria Nieyli > Unfortunately, that would be illegal if someone else holds the intellectual property.
Elsebeth Rhiannon > Illegal according to who?
Ria Nieyli > To the patent office.
Makoto Priano > Mm. Depends on how you developed the product, and whether 'functionally the same' translates to 'identical.' Again, a matter for the Caldari Business Tribunal.
Ria Nieyli > It's a spoon.
Ria Nieyli > Let's say that.
Makoto Priano > Pre-existing technology. Noone can patent a spoon. They can, say, copyright a distinctive design that is not clearly derivative of the pre-existing technology, I suppose, but your example remains ridiculous.
Ria Nieyli > Why?
Ria Nieyli > That's literally what intellectual property boils down to.
Makoto Priano > Because it's a bloody spoon. You're attempting to argue that patents should not exist. But clearly they do, and that's to compel would-be competitors to do more than merely copy their competition, and to do it in a demonstrably different way.
Makoto Priano > You have very strange notions of intellectual property.
Ria Nieyli > But the free market already compels you to do more than merely copy a product!
Ria Nieyli > If you do that, the market will reject it.
Ria Nieyli > And then you're dead in the water and lose your investment.
Makoto Priano > Yes. And one mechanism is corporate law, of which intellectual property is a valuable thing.
Makoto Priano > Consider: NOH's portfolio, entertainment. Entertainment is, by its nature, intellectual property.
Makoto Priano > When Echelon Entertainment had to auction its assets to cover KK's revolving debt, a significant portion of that was intellectual property.
Ria Nieyli > If I repeat a joke I heard in a NOH production and I make you laugh, am I stealing from them?
Makoto Priano > "In total, the corporation has sold off approximately 35% of its physical assets and 55% of its intellectual property catalog."
Makoto Priano > Depends. Are you doing damage to the brand?
Ria Nieyli > I'm merely repeating what I heard.
Makoto Priano > Unless you're profiting off of someone else's intellectual property, without use of satire or other means to differentiate or notably change the material, then I believe that's not the case.
Makoto Priano > But seriously. Consult counsel if you need intellectual property law explained to you, especially the finer points.
Ria Nieyli > And what if I added an extra line, that is keeping with the theme of the joke, is unoffensive and generally improves it.
Ria Nieyli > /emote slowlly claps > How conceited of you.
Makoto Priano > Nieyli, you're arguing minutae as a means to discredit a foundational legal system of the State.
Makoto Priano > And you speak of conceit.
Ria Nieyli > And you chose to insult me rather than hold your arguement.
Kybernetes Moros > What.
Makoto Priano > Insult you by instructing you to consult with someone trained in the finer points of the law you clearly wish to argue about? Not at all. I'm saying I'm not a legal scholar, and that you would benefit from one.
Ria Nieyli > No, you insulted me by assuming that I need it explained to me.
Makoto Priano > Are you an accredited legal scholar, lawyer, or judge?
Ria Nieyli > Yes.
Makoto Priano > Present your accredition.
Ria Nieyli > And now it is my turn to insult you:
Ria Nieyli > You're a pseudo-intellectual.
Ria Nieyli > Do you want to know why?
Makoto Priano > Oh, I'm going to love this, I'm sure.
Ria Nieyli > It seems that you think that accreditation is a requirement for knowledge.
Kybernetes Moros > What. I knew I saved this channel for a reason.
Makoto Priano > Mm. No. However, it's usually a fair indicator. I'd even go so far to say there's a marked correlation, possibly even causation.
Makoto Priano > As if someone who has certifiable training from a duly-qualified institution recognized by the State might know more about a subject as intricate as corporate law.
Ria Nieyli > Mmmhm.
Makoto Priano > Pardon the thought, of course. Mad of me to say.
Ria Nieyli > So, let's say that I'm an engineer.
Ria Nieyli > /emote snaps her fingers in rapid succession > Keeping up?
Makoto Priano > If you're found to be practicing without accredition, then that's possible grounds for Disassociation or other criminal penalties, doubly so if you cause harm.
Ria Nieyli > Apparently, not.
Makoto Priano > Because usually such positions require demonstrable capacity to do the work.
Makoto Priano > Pardon, capability. But you get my point.
Ria Nieyli > /emote shakes her head
Makoto Priano > Right. I'm done with this farce.
Ria Nieyli > At any rate, I'm an engineer.
Ria Nieyli > Following this far?
Ria Nieyli > Hello?
Ria Nieyli > Well, I guess she's gone.
Ria Nieyli > /emote drums her fingers on the table