• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarian Issues-Libertarians only please vote

Which of the following Libertarian Party Issues do you support(Libertarian only vote)


  • Total voters
    31
No, because most of them started up independently at first. It wasn't until the oligopoly was established in which the government took over the expansion of railroad tracks.

A) Prove it.

B) I can almost guarantee that there was state policies in play that aided in the formation of these oligopoly's as well; such as, the issuance of licenses and contracts to firms with connections within government.

And the government regulation which occurred in the railroad industry was mostly an optimization/safety standard than it was a "propping up" of a monopoly.

They funded the construction of the rail road, and they gave Southern Pacific 175 million acres of free public land. The Pacific Rail Act had very little to do with regulation and everything to do with granting a state sponsored monopoly to Southern Pacific.

Steel had it's own regional monopolies as well.

There were always competitors. Even Carnegie and later U.S. Steel had local competition in the form of J&L Steel.
 
A) Prove it.


B) I can almost guarantee that there was state policies in play that aided in the formation of these oligopoly's as well; such as, the issuance of licenses and contracts to firms with connections within government.

Maybe. But initially all the railroads were entirely private and the companies fought each other for tracks, contracts, and business. Regions then began to consolidate to remove the bidding wars. Eventually government involved itself in the industry to take over the tracks for various reasons, among them was efficiency and safety.

They funded the construction of the rail road, and they gave Southern Pacific 175 million acres of free public land. The Pacific Rail Act had very little to do with regulation and everything to do with granting a state sponsored monopoly to Southern Pacific.

Government funds a lot of ****. But the government had desire to expand the railroad coast to coast and so it did. Like anything, they turned to a private business already established and looked to have them do it. We still do the same thing now on many fronts. It doesn't necessarily support or establish the monopoly.

There were always competitors. Even Carnegie and later U.S. Steel had local competition in the form of J&L Steel.

Aye, there were always competitors, but Carnegie and US Steel held their regional monopolies none the less. Monopoly is control over a vast majority of the resources/business of a particular trade. Oligopoly is several companies coming together to make competition and product rules between them. None of these say that absolutely there won't be another company. It's just that the company doesn't have as much access to the markets as the monopoly or oligopoly will have.

And this is all actually besides the point. I mean, let's even take your claims as a base. We have not yet seen a monopoly/oligopoly which has developed without government. Well that doesn't say that it can't. You may say that it can't, but it's not been demonstrated that there would be any amount of actual power to properly servo the system. There is no regulation, there is no oversight. And you think that companies are going to get along happy happy like in a manner which will promote, proliferate, and sustain the free market instead of collapsing into monopoly and oligopoly. I think it's as foolish as thinking that anarchy is a viable form of government. Sure it would be great if it was, but humans being humans; it's not. Nor is Lazzie-faire a system by which the free market can be sustained. Humans being humans, there will be immediate and unbridled push towards monopoly and oligopoly. And I'll bet dollars to donuts it'd take shape in such a way as to leave us yearning for the days of "state sponsored" monopoly/oligopoly.
 
And this is all actually besides the point. I mean, let's even take your claims as a base. We have not yet seen a monopoly/oligopoly which has developed without government. Well that doesn't say that it can't. You may say that it can't, but it's not been demonstrated that there would be any amount of actual power to properly servo the system. There is no regulation, there is no oversight. And you think that companies are going to get along happy happy like in a manner which will promote, proliferate, and sustain the free market instead of collapsing into monopoly and oligopoly. I think it's as foolish as thinking that anarchy is a viable form of government. Sure it would be great if it was, but humans being humans; it's not. Nor is Lazzie-faire a system by which the free market can be sustained. Humans being humans, there will be immediate and unbridled push towards monopoly and oligopoly. And I'll bet dollars to donuts it'd take shape in such a way as to leave us yearning for the days of "state sponsored" monopoly/oligopoly.

Bingo! It's human nature to pursue self interest. And it would be in the self interest of large companies to pursue monopolies or oligopolies or at a minimum engage in collusion with each other to circumvent market forces. Anyone who thinks companies wouldn't attempt this is delusional. The free market, if left entirely to the devices of private companies, would quickly collapse into something entirely different than the free market. Certain government regulations help preserve the free market.
 
Maybe. But initially all the railroads were entirely private and the companies fought each other for tracks, contracts, and business. Regions then began to consolidate to remove the bidding wars. Eventually government involved itself in the industry to take over the tracks for various reasons, among them was efficiency and safety.


It was because of statist intervention in the market through the creations of various barriers to entry which allowed the monopolies and oligopolies to form.

Government funds a lot of ****. But the government had desire to expand the railroad coast to coast and so it did. Like anything, they turned to a private business already established and looked to have them do it. We still do the same thing now on many fronts. It doesn't necessarily support or establish the monopoly.

They didn't just fund it they gave them 175 million acres of free land. Even if the competitors could afford to build competitive rail roads without governmental investment they would need to get the Feds to seed to them the public lands in the Western Territories which of course the state would not do as the government did not want competition because then they would have more trouble getting the bonds paid back by Southern Pacific. In a free market that unused public land would have been homesteaded the second someone invested labor into building a rail road track on them and there would have been much more competition between many different firms because no single firm could afford to produce the transcontinental railroad on their own without federal investment.


Aye, there were always competitors, but Carnegie and US Steel held their regional monopolies none the less.

Once again J&L Steel was a regional competitor to Carnegie.

Monopoly is control over a vast majority of the resources/business of a particular trade. Oligopoly is several companies coming together to make competition and product rules between them. None of these say that absolutely there won't be another company. It's just that the company doesn't have as much access to the markets as the monopoly or oligopoly will have.

And this is all actually besides the point. I mean, let's even take your claims as a base. We have not yet seen a monopoly/oligopoly which has developed without government. Well that doesn't say that it can't. You may say that it can't, but it's not been demonstrated that there would be any amount of actual power to properly servo the system. There is no regulation, there is no oversight. And you think that companies are going to get along happy happy like in a manner which will promote, proliferate, and sustain the free market instead of collapsing into monopoly and oligopoly. I think it's as foolish as thinking that anarchy is a viable form of government. Sure it would be great if it was, but humans being humans; it's not. Nor is Lazzie-faire a system by which the free market can be sustained. Humans being humans, there will be immediate and unbridled push towards monopoly and oligopoly. And I'll bet dollars to donuts it'd take shape in such a way as to leave us yearning for the days of "state sponsored" monopoly/oligopoly.

Monopolies simply can not form without governmental intervention, markets are simply to competitive to allow for sustained monopolies, that is without statist imposed barriers to entry.

Here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://mises.org/etexts/armentanomonopoly.pdf
 
No amnesty for criminals. Sheesh, giving the store away is NOT a libertarian position.

Enabling legal immigrants in to find work, that's another matter entirely.
 
I voted for all of them except for ending welfare and amnesty. While an enemy of the police state, libertarianism still doesn't support flaunting the law, which illegal immigration does. Also, some basement level of welfare is necessary.

No.

A libertarian would say, "since I feel a basement level of welfare is necessary, I'm willing to contribute a percentage of my wealth to help the poor and encourage others to voluntarily contribute theirs, also, but the government should not seize the power to take money to give to others."
 
I did this before, but as Redress sees fit to recap, I figure it is too.

Laissez Faire capitalism

I'd like something pretty close to it. Usually government regulation just makes things worse. The market is too diverse to be tamed by Uncle Sam and people can only really know their own self-interest best.

End drug prohibition

Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal one. We don't arrest you for eating fatty food, do we? Stop pushing away addicts from help and fueling violence over the drug trade. Legalize drugs.

Avoid interventionism in foreign police

To a certain extent. We could certainly reduce military spending and close some bases, but sometimes it's in our best interests to get involved militarily abroad.

End foreign aid

I support direct aid for things like natural disasters and the Afghanistan War, and I wouldn't mind NATO bombing Khartoum. However, most aid just enriches corrupt governments. Globalization is far more beneficial.

End gun bans

Yes, the people need to be able to rebel against a tyrannical government if necessary.

Deregulate healthcare

Much of the problems we have are related to the government cartelizing insurance and obscuring costs with tax benefits for employer based insurance. End the tax breaks and regulations on insurance. As for things like doctors being accredited, I wouldn't make it a requirement for practicing medicine, but they have to inform consumers what their level of education is.

Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)

Immigration is in serious need for reform. Don't know about semi-amnesty, but it must be made far easier for poor people to immigrate, or else they'll just sneek in and leech off of our entitlements and welfare.

End welfare

Not entirely, I still support unemployment insurance, assistance to the disabled, and a small stipend for the poor so they can spend it as they see fit. However, for the most part, yes.

Allow opting out of Social Security

Privatize it.
 
It was because of statist intervention in the market through the creations of various barriers to entry which allowed the monopolies and oligopolies to form.

I think that monopoly and oligopoly will form regardless if there isn't proper oversight and regulation. Can it occur with government help? Hell yes it can. Very easily. We currently have a very similar form of capitalism now, corporate capitalism which is in fact supported and proliferated through the State. I am not saying that it can't happen, that the government can't act improperly or that the government cannot encourage monopoly. I'm saying that monopoly doesn't necessarily need government to form.

They didn't just fund it they gave them 175 million acres of free land. Even if the competitors could afford to build competitive rail roads without governmental investment they would need to get the Feds to seed to them the public lands in the Western Territories which of course the state would not do as the government did not want competition because then they would have more trouble getting the bonds paid back by Southern Pacific. In a free market that unused public land would have been homesteaded the second someone invested labor into building a rail road track on them and there would have been much more competition between many different firms because no single firm could afford to produce the transcontinental railroad on their own without federal investment.

I mean, we can sit here and point out improper government action till the cows come home. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. I am disagreeing with the assertion that monopoly/oligopoly cannot form without government. Government certainly has helped their buddies in high places a lot at the cost of actual competition. They have certainly acted improperly in the past, present, and future. I cannot and will not deny that. But people are saying monopoly takes the State, I don't see how that's true.


Once again J&L Steel was a regional competitor to Carnegie.

They existed, yes. They "competed" against Carnegie. But not on large scale, and they did not own as much of the supply and processing power that Carnegie held. They simply couldn't fully compete against Carnegie. They can establish a little niche, yes. And even with monopoly or even oligopoly, there is nothing which says a niche cannot be developed.

Monopolies simply can not form without governmental intervention, markets are simply to competitive to allow for sustained monopolies, that is without statist imposed barriers to entry.

Here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://mises.org/etexts/armentanomonopoly.pdf

I remain unconvinced. You've basically told me that monopoly cannot form without government intervention because of magic. I don't buy it. Why? What is they dynamic? What prevents a company from taking too much, what prevents them from using smear tactics, from using deceptive marketing, from using predatory pricing? Right now, rules and regulations prevent that. But without that, how do you prevent this? Saying "oh blah blah blah, competition" doesn't cut it. I need to see the actual servo which will prevent humans from acting like humans and that which can sustain actual free market capitalism. What we currently use to try to stop humans from being human is government force. We have fines, we have courts, we have regulations to ensure worker safety and proper wages. But lazzie-faire...none of that exists. So how do you exert that force? People aren't going to stop being people. And if you unbridled business to do whatever they want whenever they want it, they will act only in one way; increase profit. And they'll do whatever they can to do so. They'll have no choice. Now that you've removed all the outside force which can control that, how is it that in your ideal environment these things are controlled?

It's just like what happened in the banking sector before the collapse. Between Clinton and Bush, all proper regulation of loans and leveraging were removed. Some people knew the system was unsustainable; headed for a crash. But they could do nothing about it. Not when their competitors were out making money hand over fist. They too had to go make money hand over fist by any means possible. And they did, and they rode the wave to the breaking point. And now we're in a fine little mess.

No government regulation/oversight is just as bad as too much government regulation and oversight; maybe even more so.
 
Monopolies certainly can form naturally, but this is very difficult to do. The company must convince everyone that it that it's product is the best. Even with collusion, it's very difficult to fill up every niche of consumer demand.
 
Monopolies certainly can form naturally, but this is very difficult to do. The company must convince everyone that it that it's product is the best. Even with collusion, it's very difficult to fill up every niche of consumer demand.

I can see it maybe harder to start one up since yes you'll have to compete without government favoring any one side. But I also see it as easier to keep once you've obtained. And I see nothing which would absolutely prevent them.

I mean, I think a good example of your point is Microsoft. Right? They came in with an idea, a good idea, a marketable idea, and they blew up. Before you knew it, everything ran on Microsoft. Now perhaps it was all lovey dovey the way they ran; but with no government intervention Microsoft rockets past everyone else. Now they can be on top and what's to prevent them from using their resources, brand name, and power from destroying anything which threatens their base or to ensure their reign at top through deceptive and destructive market tools? Nothing. And thus the free market dies.
 
I can see it maybe harder to start one up since yes you'll have to compete without government favoring any one side. But I also see it as easier to keep once you've obtained. And I see nothing which would absolutely prevent them.

You have to maintain your place at the top. Not impossible to do, you can still cheat people, but it's relatively difficult to do over the long run.

I mean, I think a good example of your point is Microsoft. Right? They came in with an idea, a good idea, a marketable idea, and they blew up. Before you knew it, everything ran on Microsoft. Now perhaps it was all lovey dovey the way they ran; but with no government intervention Microsoft rockets past everyone else. Now they can be on top and what's to prevent them from using their resources, brand name, and power from destroying anything which threatens their base or to ensure their reign at top through deceptive and destructive market tools? Nothing. And thus the free market dies.

Apple
 
I mean, I think a good example of your point is Microsoft. Right? They came in with an idea, a good idea, a marketable idea, and they blew up. Before you knew it, everything ran on Microsoft. Now perhaps it was all lovey dovey the way they ran; but with no government intervention Microsoft rockets past everyone else. Now they can be on top and what's to prevent them from using their resources, brand name, and power from destroying anything which threatens their base or to ensure their reign at top through deceptive and destructive market tools? Nothing. And thus the free market dies.

The free market is dead because of Apple? So nobody else creates mp3 players or smart phones or laptops or computers? Seriously?

EDIT: Nvm. I was reading too quickly. I see what you mean now. Disregard this post.
 
Last edited:
You have to maintain your place at the top. Not impossible to do, you can still cheat people, but it's relatively difficult to do over the long run.

Why? I see it as the opposite. Once you're on the top, you've aggregated most of the supply, production, etc. for that particular market. It's easy to control it, it's easy to prevent access to it. Furthermore, you have the resources available for deceptive practices and predatory pricing techniques; what prevents you from going down that path? I think once established, with no regulation or oversight, it's much much easier to stay on top


Apple has been around for a long time, but they were unable to stop the monopolization of OS that Microsoft accomplished. And they can compete better now because the government came down on Microsoft, broke it up. There was regulation and oversight. What if there were none? Would Apple still be around? Would it be as "big" as it is now? I don't think so.

Besides, Apple sucks.
 
In response to Microsoft, Linux based OS are out there, as is Apple. Mozilla is overtaking Internet Explorer. There is no such thing as a permanent monopoly except for those supported by the government. You have to remain the best in order to stay at the top.
 
In response to Microsoft, Linux based OS are out there, as is Apple. Mozilla is overtaking Internet Explorer. There is no such thing as a permanent monopoly except for those supported by the government. You have to remain the best in order to stay at the top.

Exactly. But all those things exist in a world of government oversight and regulation. We look to servo the system and try our best to maintain a free market. But what if we didn't have that oversight? What if we didn't have any regulation? What if you couldn't turn to the courts? Would Linux and Apple and all the others be around, would they be as strong? Or would the ones on top have done everything they could to mitigate the effectiveness and market share captured by the others by any means possible?

Currently you have to remain the best in order to stay at the top. But if we remove all the forces which ensure that, how do we know it to be the case?
 
Why? I see it as the opposite. Once you're on the top, you've aggregated most of the supply, production, etc. for that particular market. It's easy to control it, it's easy to prevent access to it. Furthermore, you have the resources available for deceptive practices and predatory pricing techniques; what prevents you from going down that path? I think once established, with no regulation or oversight, it's much much easier to stay on top

And then consumer demand changes, someone comes up with a better way to do things, or you just get complacent. It does happen quite often.

Apple has been around for a long time, but they were unable to stop the monopolization of OS that Microsoft accomplished. And they can compete better now because the government came down on Microsoft, broke it up. There was regulation and oversight. What if there were none? Would Apple still be around? Would it be as "big" as it is now? I don't think so.

Apple still had to do well on its own. Linux also came into the picture. In the long run, monopolization is very difficult to maintain.

Besides, Apple sucks.

No dispute there. I contribute to Microsoft's near dominance myself, because it doesn't suck. If you can get a large chunk of consumer demand by not sucking, then in my opinion, God bless ya.
 
And then consumer demand changes, someone comes up with a better way to do things, or you just get complacent. It does happen quite often.

Indeed, and I would love to do things solely through consumer demand. But that takes responsible, educated consumerism. And honestly, take a look around at this country and tell me that this is something that is realistically feasible. So if we're going to talk about what likely will happen, them most likely thing is that there will be no responsible, educated consumerism and the monopolies will have easy time holding on. You can argue that we'll get what we deserve, and on some level that is certainly true. Yet it's a less than satisfactory answer.

Apple still had to do well on its own. Linux also came into the picture. In the long run, monopolization is very difficult to maintain.

But remember, back in the day Apple was circling the drain. The only Apple I ever owned was an Apple 2 C. Learned to program in basic on it. Had Microsoft been allowed to, they would have pushed Apple over the cliff. But they are restricted in their marketing and aggregated resource so they couldn't. Thus Apple survived and held on long enough to capture some of the upcoming techs to successfully compete and participate in the market. Thanks to oversight and regulation.

No dispute there. I contribute to Microsoft's near dominance myself, because it doesn't suck. If you can get a large chunk of consumer demand by not sucking, then in my opinion, God bless ya.

There's always that too, I really think that mostly fits Windows. But now so few people use Macs and such that there aren't even any viruses for it.
 
Indeed, and I would love to do things solely through consumer demand. But that takes responsible, educated consumerism. And honestly, take a look around at this country and tell me that this is something that is realistically feasible. So if we're going to talk about what likely will happen, them most likely thing is that there will be no responsible, educated consumerism and the monopolies will have easy time holding on. You can argue that we'll get what we deserve, and on some level that is certainly true. Yet it's a less than satisfactory answer.

Not everybody has to know what they're doing. A large enough number of informed consumers drive demand. Companies try to get them, and if someone's too lazy to research a certain product (in the Internet age for Christ's sake) oh well.

But remember, back in the day Apple was circling the drain. The only Apple I ever owned was an Apple 2 C. Learned to program in basic on it. Had Microsoft been allowed to, they would have pushed Apple over the cliff. But they are restricted in their marketing and aggregated resource so they couldn't. Thus Apple survived and held on long enough to capture some of the upcoming techs to successfully compete and participate in the market. Thanks to oversight and regulation.

If Apple couldn't cut it on its own, I'd say screw em. anyway

There's always that too, I really think that mostly fits Windows. But now so few people use Macs and such that there aren't even any viruses for it.

Because they suck. People avoid them, because Microsoft built a better product.
 
I think that monopoly and oligopoly will form regardless if there isn't proper oversight and regulation. Can it occur with government help? Hell yes it can. Very easily. We currently have a very similar form of capitalism now, corporate capitalism which is in fact supported and proliferated through the State. I am not saying that it can't happen, that the government can't act improperly or that the government cannot encourage monopoly. I'm saying that monopoly doesn't necessarily need government to form.

If it can happen naturally without state aid then why can't you point to a single example to prove your point? The market is far to competitive to sustain a monopoly without state involvement; such as, barriers to entry and cronyism in which exclusive contracts are awarded to favored companies.


But people are saying monopoly takes the State, I don't see how that's true.

Well A) the state itself is an unjust monopoly, and B) if you don't think it's true then point us to a monopoly which has formed without the aid of the state.

They existed, yes. They "competed" against Carnegie. But not on large scale, and they did not own as much of the supply and processing power that Carnegie held. They simply couldn't fully compete against Carnegie. They can establish a little niche, yes. And even with monopoly or even oligopoly, there is nothing which says a niche cannot be developed.

They were a viable competitor so Carnegie's Steel Company didn't even meet the definition of monopoly to begin with.

I remain unconvinced. You've basically told me that monopoly cannot form without government intervention because of magic.

No I have said because the natural competitiveness of the market won't allow monopoly to be sustained, you on the other hand say that it can form without state intervention and yet have failed to provide a single example of that having ever occurred.

I don't buy it. Why? What is they dynamic? What prevents a company from taking too much, what prevents them from using smear tactics,

Tort legislation which would protect private companies from defamation which could be settled through private arbitration.

from using deceptive marketing,

Consumer activism.

from using predatory pricing?

Once again predatory is a myth, there is not a single example of it having ever occurred, and moreover, it is illogical for a company to go through the immense risks which predatory pricing would entail. The company would have to lower its prices drastically in the future hopes of gaining them back, that is considerably risky. Moreover, there are counter strategies to predatory pricing, for example a smaller company could just close up show and wait until the "company with deep pockets" raises its prices back up, and then go back into business. Or the smaller company could sell there company to yet another company "with deep pockets" or an investor could go around after all of the small companies have been driven out of business, buy their factories at firesale prices and come into the market ready to beat the **** out of the guy who was stupid enough to drop prices in the first place who is now about to go out of business because he just lost considerable profits by dropping prices and his little scheme didn't work because a wealthy savvy investor saw him coming a mile a way.

Right now, rules and regulations prevent that. But without that, how do you prevent this? Saying "oh blah blah blah, competition" doesn't cut it. I need to see the actual servo which will prevent humans from acting like humans and that which can sustain actual free market capitalism. What we currently use to try to stop humans from being human is government force. We have fines, we have courts, we have regulations to ensure worker safety

Tort laws in liability cases handled by private arbiters could be used to insure worker safety.

and proper wages.

Highly skilled workers get good pay, because companies compete to hire them, unskilled workers are harmed by minimum wage laws because it makes it expensive for firms to hire them as trainees.


But lazzie-faire...none of that exists. So how do you exert that force? People aren't going to stop being people. And if you unbridled business to do whatever they want whenever they want it, they will act only in one way; increase profit. And they'll do whatever they can to do so. They'll have no choice. Now that you've removed all the outside force which can control that, how is it that in your ideal environment these things are controlled?

It's just like what happened in the banking sector before the collapse. Between Clinton and Bush, all proper regulation of loans and leveraging were removed. Some people knew the system was unsustainable; headed for a crash. But they could do nothing about it. Not when their competitors were out making money hand over fist. They too had to go make money hand over fist by any means possible. And they did, and they rode the wave to the breaking point. And now we're in a fine little mess.

No government regulation/oversight is just as bad as too much government regulation and oversight; maybe even more so.

The mess that we're in is a direct result of the Federal Reserve and Corporatism run amok. It was not the free market that failed it was state capitalism.
 
I mean, I think a good example of your point is Microsoft. Right? They came in with an idea, a good idea, a marketable idea, and they blew up. Before you knew it, everything ran on Microsoft. Now perhaps it was all lovey dovey the way they ran; but with no government intervention Microsoft rockets past everyone else. Now they can be on top and what's to prevent them from using their resources, brand name, and power from destroying anything which threatens their base or to ensure their reign at top through deceptive and destructive market tools? Nothing. And thus the free market dies.

Microsoft has a 90 year copyright on all versions of Windows.

Anyone that tries to improve and sell a better/customized/different copy of Windows anything will be infringing on their copyright.

Microsoft has a government granted monopoly.
 
I dont believe in part politics, i see it as a canser.
With that statement you might be able to judge if im a "L" or "l".
 
Microsoft has a 90 year copyright on all versions of Windows.

Anyone that tries to improve and sell a better/customized/different copy of Windows anything will be infringing on their copyright.

Microsoft has a government granted monopoly.

That's like saying that laws preventing theft give car owners a government-granted monopoly over their vehicle. IP is property, monopoly applies to markets
 
That's like saying that laws preventing theft give car owners a government-granted monopoly over their vehicle. IP is property, monopoly applies to markets

You can own a car, you can't own a non physical "thing."
Once you tell someone your idea, it is no longer under your exclusive control.

That's besides the fact that software is a virtual mechanical "thing" which makes it fall under patent law, not IP law.
Code is not a work of art, literature etc.
 
Last edited:
You can own a car, you can't own a non physical "thing."
Once you tell someone your idea, it is no longer under your exclusive control.

You bring up literature below. Once you tell somebody your story, it is no longer under your exclusive control. Literature is IP just like all other forms of IP, and IP needs protection (for this very reason).

That's besides the fact that software is a virtual mechanical "thing" which makes it fall under patent law, not IP law.
Code is not a work of art, literature etc.

Patent law is a subset of IP law

From wiki

Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.
 
You bring up literature below. Once you tell somebody your story, it is no longer under your exclusive control. Literature is IP just like all other forms of IP, and IP needs protection (for this very reason).

I know but 90 years (for corporate ownership) and life of the author plus 60 years, is insanity.
It doesn't allow someone else to improve upon it.


Patent law is a subset of IP law

From wiki

I understand that but why does code fall under copyright and not patent length terms?
For all intents, code operates as a virtual machine.
 
Back
Top Bottom