If software is no longer produced....

[OldTrees]

Do you feel that people have the right to select who can or cannot use the product of their labor in the form of the service of innovation? (Note this is much softer than most current forms of "intellectual property". For example it allows others to use the idea provided they also come up with the idea.)

That would certainly be an improvement, but no I do not believe that is a right.

If you can, would you expand on this. I am interested in seeing your perspective on innovators.

I do not consider it a right, because rights exist to protect our basic freedoms from other humans. They do not guarantee happiness, health, or wealth; they attempt to guarantee simply that whatever happiness, health and success you have will not be taken from you by force.

On a more "practical" note:
As you get closer and closer to a free market type economy, barriers to entry are lowered and competition gets fiercer. No business is too big to fail, and any company must be constantly proving it's worth to remain in the marketplace. In such conditions, innovation is in high demand as a means to gain an edge on the competition, and anyone who can meet that demand will reap the rewards.

Is it permissible for someone to use a chair without the permission of the carpenter or someone the carpenter has given permission to give permission?
Is it permissible for someone to use a concept without the permission of anyone that deduced the concept or someone they gave permission to give permission?
If the answer to these questions differ (as I currently suspect your position to be), what is the relevant difference?

On the practical note:
Innovation would be in high demand. But would innovators be in high demand if anyone can use the innovations of a specific innovator without employing (directly or indirectly) that innovator or another innovator?

[YoungSot]

Spoiler for Hidden:

Do you feel that people have the right to select who can or cannot use the product of their labor in the form of the service of innovation? (Note this is much softer than most current forms of "intellectual property". For example it allows others to use the idea provided they also come up with the idea.)

That would certainly be an improvement, but no I do not believe that is a right.

If you can, would you expand on this. I am interested in seeing your perspective on innovators.

I do not consider it a right, because rights exist to protect our basic freedoms from other humans. They do not guarantee happiness, health, or wealth; they attempt to guarantee simply that whatever happiness, health and success you have will not be taken from you by force.

On a more "practical" note:
As you get closer and closer to a free market type economy, barriers to entry are lowered and competition gets fiercer. No business is too big to fail, and any company must be constantly proving it's worth to remain in the marketplace. In such conditions, innovation is in high demand as a means to gain an edge on the competition, and anyone who can meet that demand will reap the rewards.

1. Is it permissible for someone to use a chair without the permission of the carpenter or someone the carpenter has given permission to give permission?
Is it permissible for someone to use a concept without the permission of anyone that deduced the concept or someone they gave permission to give permission?
If the answer to these questions differ (as I currently suspect your position to be), what is the relevant difference?

2. On the practical note:
Innovation would be in high demand. But would innovators be in high demand if anyone can use the innovations of a specific innovator without employing (directly or indirectly) that innovator or another innovator?

Only one person can own (have control of) the chair at a time. For me to use the chair the carpenter must stop using it. There is no such conflict with an idea.

I could list various ways the innovators could make money (non-disclosure agreements could help them make sales pitches for example), but a better approach would be as follows: Innovation has value to any business model. Because it has value, there will be demand. If the supply of innovation decreased because innovators felt they weren't being properly rewarded, then the laws of supply and demand would cause innovation to become more and more valuable. In that case, businesses would actively seek out ways to pay for innovation.

[OldTrees]

Spoiler for Hidden:

Do you feel that people have the right to select who can or cannot use the product of their labor in the form of the service of innovation? (Note this is much softer than most current forms of "intellectual property". For example it allows others to use the idea provided they also come up with the idea.)

That would certainly be an improvement, but no I do not believe that is a right.

If you can, would you expand on this. I am interested in seeing your perspective on innovators.

I do not consider it a right, because rights exist to protect our basic freedoms from other humans. They do not guarantee happiness, health, or wealth; they attempt to guarantee simply that whatever happiness, health and success you have will not be taken from you by force.

On a more "practical" note:
As you get closer and closer to a free market type economy, barriers to entry are lowered and competition gets fiercer. No business is too big to fail, and any company must be constantly proving it's worth to remain in the marketplace. In such conditions, innovation is in high demand as a means to gain an edge on the competition, and anyone who can meet that demand will reap the rewards.

1. Is it permissible for someone to use a chair without the permission of the carpenter or someone the carpenter has given permission to give permission?
Is it permissible for someone to use a concept without the permission of anyone that deduced the concept or someone they gave permission to give permission?
If the answer to these questions differ (as I currently suspect your position to be), what is the relevant difference?

2. On the practical note:
Innovation would be in high demand. But would innovators be in high demand if anyone can use the innovations of a specific innovator without employing (directly or indirectly) that innovator or another innovator?

Only one person can own (have control of) the chair at a time. For me to use the chair the carpenter must stop using it. There is no such conflict with an idea.

I could list various ways the innovators could make money (non-disclosure agreements could help them make sales pitches for example), but a better approach would be as follows: Innovation has value to any business model. Because it has value, there will be demand. If the supply of innovation decreased because innovators felt they weren't being properly rewarded, then the laws of supply and demand would cause innovation to become more and more valuable. In that case, businesses would actively seek out ways to pay for innovation.

Only one person can own the chair at a time. Ownership of a chair can only be obtained from a current owner.
Many people can own (be able to use or give or not give to others) an innovation. Does everyone automatically own new innovations or do they need to obtain ownership from one of the current owners?

I was assuming non-disclosure agreements. However anyone that heard the idea could use it without disclosing it OR people could hear the idea without signing such an agreement (hire someone to break a non-disclosure agreement).

People tend to be reluctant to pay for positive externalities that hurt themselves. Innovation has lots of positive externalities that hurt the employer of the innovator. (Unless this externality is internalized in a trade) This is similar to the tragedy of the commons.

[YoungSot]

Only one person can own the chair at a time. Ownership of a chair can only be obtained from a current owner.
Many people can own (be able to use or give or not give to others) an innovation. Does everyone automatically own new innovations or do they need to obtain ownership from one of the current owners?

I'm unsure whether the standard concept of ownership can be made to apply to ideas at all, since it typically implies exclusive control, and ideas can be simultaneously "controlled" by multiple individuals without any one individual giving up their control.

I was assuming non-disclosure agreements. However anyone that heard the idea could use it without disclosing it OR people could hear the idea without signing such an agreement (hire someone to break a non-disclosure agreement).

So use a more thorough contract?

People tend to be reluctant to pay for positive externalities that hurt themselves. Innovation has lots of positive externalities that hurt the employer of the innovator. (Unless this externality is internalized in a trade) This is similar to the tragedy of the commons.

I don't think that comparison is accurate. Investing in new ideas offers the potential for direct benefit to the company which does so. It is fully justifiable by self-interest.

[OldTrees]

Only one person can own the chair at a time. Ownership of a chair can only be obtained from a current owner.
Many people can own (be able to use or give or not give to others) an innovation. Does everyone automatically own new innovations or do they need to obtain ownership from one of the current owners?

I'm unsure whether the standard concept of ownership can be made to apply to ideas at all, since it typically implies exclusive control, and ideas can be simultaneously "controlled" by multiple individuals without any one individual giving up their control.

Labor is similar. Everyone has access to labor. No one is allowed to use another's labor without their consent.
Everyone has access to discovery. Should people be allowed to use another's discovery without their consent?

I was assuming non-disclosure agreements. However anyone that heard the idea could use it without disclosing it OR people could hear the idea without signing such an agreement (hire someone to break a non-disclosure agreement).

So use a more thorough contract?

People that are not present when a contract is made, cannot be bound by that contract. A more though contract would prevent the people signing the contract from using the idea without permission. However the majority of the issue is about the actions of the 3rd party.

People tend to be reluctant to pay for positive externalities that hurt themselves. Innovation has lots of positive externalities that hurt the employer of the innovator. (Unless this externality is internalized in a trade) This is similar to the tragedy of the commons.

I don't think that comparison is accurate. Investing in new ideas offers the potential for direct benefit to the company which does so. It is fully justifiable by self-interest.

Investing in an innovator would cost wages[ - ], provide the company access to the idea[ + ] and provide the competitors access to the idea[ - ].
It is true that the tragedy of the commons dealt with objective loss rather than relative loss. I am not sure if that affects my point. People tend to be reluctant to cause themselves to suffer relative loss.