What does it mean to own something and how can it impact our sense of self? Many philosophers have has opposing views about this. However, Jean-Paul Sartre has the most accurate representation about the meaning of owning something. Ownership expands beyond physical objects, which means that it includes intangible things. This includes learning a skill or knowing a subject extremely well. Also, ownership doesn’t always impact character negatively, the same way it doesn’t impact it positively all the time. You can see examples of this all throughout everyday life, literature, and movies.…
who consume the intellectual property also benefit positively from the sharing of it because they are able to use the…
Intellectual property rights refer to a design or creation that any individual has created and documented down in a way such as music, inventions or lyrics. As the owner of the work you have created you naturally inherit certain rights dependant on the nature of the work you have thought of. I think this is a fair and rewarding process to the inventor. It also gives an incentive for others to put there ideas forward to gain a money to cover the purchasing of any research or resources they would have had to buy. More detail of this can be found available at…
Socialism does not advocate the seizure of private property; it advocates the nationalization of the means of production. Communism on the other hand takes away everything, leaving nothing for the individual but what the State deems enough.…
We have identified one of the central themes in sociology to be the question of who does what (labor) and who gets what (distribution of the surplus created through labor). The idea of private property and the social institutions that emerge to define and defend the right to private property, play a role in the development of inequality and stratification in society. The discussion of property, property rights, and inequality has a long history, filled with diverse arguments, ideas, and diagnoses. Below is a sampling of quotes capturing a range of perspectives on the subject:…
A person can only become realized through another, and the achievement of private property is a way of asserting dominance and showing others that you have made it to the means of freedom. All ideas are not significant until recognized by the world. The world must recognize that you have property??…
Also Jean-Paul Sartre claimed that ownership extends beyond objects to include intangible things as well. Basically, if you are adept at something and can perform a job or task really good, you "own" it. I also believe that this statement that Jean said was true. An example could be sports. Let's say you're really good at basketball and can shoot better than anyone else in the school. You "own" that level of skill that others don't possess. Other people can't shoot the ball as good as you, so they don't "own" that…
Pope Leo XIII argues that socialism is an unacceptable economic system simply because it does not fall within the boundaries of natural rights. The Pope starts out by saying socialism strives off of the poor man’s envy of the rich by supporting the publication of private property. Pope Leo focuses on the rights of man given to him by nature, which, he claims, one of the rights is possession of private property. Man, by his nature is the master of his own acts under the law and power of God. Man also has the right to provide substance to his own body, something he could provide for himself if he personally owned property from which to profit off of. Socialists, by removing the privacy of property, defraud man of what his labor produces by making the fruit of his labor a public object. In conclusion, civil laws are only sound when they are accurately derived from nature.…
Sarte’s view of ownership appeals to ethics, a branch of knowledge that deals with morals and principles. Since Sarte’s perspective of ownership is intangible, and to own something does not necessarily mean to physically own something, but to realize something as apart of us, like a thought. Sarte appeals to ethics, because he thinks that we can own something with or through our minds. Aristotle’s view is tangible: he believes that an object has to be physical if it is going to be owned. An example would be reading a biography- I am reading someone’s life, but I do not have the credit for writing the book, because it would be inhumane to take credit of someone’s work. But I own it, because I remember the story, in my thoughts.…
The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party, called the ``owner''? Software developers typically consider these questions on the assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers' profits. The political power of business has led to the government adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation associated with its development. I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general. This answer cannot be decided by current law--the law should conform to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current practice decide this question, although it may suggest possible answers. The only way to judge is to see who is helped and who is hurt by recognizing owners of software, why, and how much. In other words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production of material goods. In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write ``free'' software.(1)…
“...He had a saying, ‘good artists copy, great artists steal’...”, Steve Jobs quoting Pablo Picasso. According to FBI.gov intellectual property theft is defined as robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions. Intellectual property theft is one of the things that aided in the explosive growth of the computer and technology industry, but is much less common in the industry today. Was this theft justified due to companies not taking the necessary actions to prevent other companies from using their ideas? In the case of the budding computer industry, yes. Since the majority of young computer companies were using each other's ideas, hardware, etc. it was seen as a “combined effort” to promote and grow the high-tech industry.…
The development of intellectual property law in the United States has followed the development of society within the United States from a primarily agricultural society during the 1700’s to today’s technological society. The development of intellectual property law in the United States has also followed the development of American law in general. As America moved into and through the Industrial Revolution of the 1800’s, intellectual property laws became more and more numerous and stringent as people and industry worked to safe guard their money making ideas and products. The explosive use of the internet in today’s society has added an entirely new wrinkle to protection of concepts and ideas and products in the market place.…
The social issue I would like to discuss here is: “Suppose a computer manufacturer develops a new machine architecture. To what extent should the company be allowed to own that architecture? What policy would be best for society?”…
11408 Northwind Court Reston, VA 20194 (703) 478-3996 (H) (202) 806-8029 (W) (571) 265-5098 (cell) Fax: (815) 361-9059…
3. Italian patent application – app. Reviewed by patent office. Not verified and therefore not very strong (weak = cheap = easily accessible).…