Patents

I don’t know when I started to think, but I believe I was free to think from the day of my creation. It is my natural right.

A few years ago I started a kind of hobby: Objective-C programming. First on Macs, then iPhones and the rest of iOS devices. Apple engineers created beautiful language with first class development IDE and solid API running on best hardware on the planet. Amazing hobby, and I’ve never been so creative in my life. I have tons of ideas, and enough wisdom to store the best of them. Some of my ideas could become patents.

I do not understand the logic of patent laws. Why is wheel not ok to patent, but 5 wheels combined are? It is my natural right to have any idea I want, by ability to think inside my head. When we give anyone the right to dictate what is not in our heads, they can decide to remove our frontal lobes too, can they not? It is our natural right to exploit ideas we have, however we please, as long as we do not hurt others in the process. 

It is our natural right to hide our ideas from others: keep them secret, keep them safe; if you prefer 😉

Preventing me from having certain idea by putting this idea in some place with limited public access is an obvious infringement of my freedom to think, it is not something I want to be done to me. Current US patent law is not compatible with Ultimate Law.

Forum Discussion

Why Ideas Cannot Ethically Be Restricted by Others Under the Ultimate Law:

1. Universality of Logic and Reciprocity:

• Ideas and knowledge, once communicated, inherently become part of a common logical landscape accessible by all minds. Since logic is universal, claiming exclusive ownership over logical conclusions violates reciprocity, as it restricts others from the freedom one enjoys oneself—learning and applying ideas.

2. Ideas Are Non-Rivalrous and Naturally Replicable:

• Ideas do not diminish when shared. One’s use of an idea does not inherently reduce its availability for others, making exclusivity logically unnecessary and ethically questionable.

3. Learning and Following Are Natural Rights:

• Individuals have an inherent moral right to learn, adapt, and build upon existing knowledge, provided they cause no harm, deceit, or coercion in the process. Preventing people from using knowledge freely available is thus inherently coercive and violates the Ultimate Law.

Flaws in Current Patent and Copyright Systems:

1. Coercive Monopolization:

• Current intellectual property systems grant state-enforced monopolies on ideas or expressions, artificially restricting free exchange. Such monopolies contradict principles of voluntary exchange, fairness, and universal reciprocity.

2. Stifled Innovation and Progress:

• Excessive protection often hinders rather than promotes innovation by blocking incremental improvements, follow-on innovations, and collaborative advancements.

3. Arbitrary and Ambiguous Boundaries:

• Legal frameworks rely on subjective distinctions between original ideas and derivative works. This ambiguity invites litigation and creates uncertainty, disproportionately benefiting powerful entities with greater resources.

4. Disproportional Punishments and Barriers:

• Enforcement mechanisms frequently impose disproportionate penalties and restrictions that exceed legitimate restitution for actual harm, violating logical principles of justice and fairness.

5. Limiting Freedom of Expression and Knowledge Sharing:

• By imposing strict limitations, these systems infringe upon natural human freedoms of expression and education, hindering societal progress and cultural enrichment.

6. Inefficiencies and Costs:

• The administrative complexity and costs of managing and litigating intellectual property rights far outweigh practical benefits, draining societal resources.

Ethical Alternative Under the Ultimate Law:

• Open Knowledge Economy: Encourage open sharing of ideas, where credit is voluntary and based on reputation rather than coercive enforcement.
• Natural Reciprocity: Use fair attribution and voluntary contracts to maintain accountability, encouraging innovation and collaboration without coercion.

In conclusion, the Ultimate Law inherently rejects coercive intellectual monopolies because they violate logic, reciprocity, and ethical consistency, while advocating for freedom, fair restitution, and open, voluntary cooperation.