Oh, we humans are so proprietary with our laws and all our abstract concepts that can be “owned”. No doubt whatever gods may exist are highly amused at our childish antics. As if owning a piece of the earth weren’t absurd enough, we also think that we can own ideas themselves. I invented this or I thought of that first and I got dibs on that mathematical equation. Granted, there are some brilliantly creative minds out there that come up with relatively new concepts that many of us can reap the benefits of, but no one really creates anything from scratch. All ideas are derivative and new concepts are only new combinations of old elements.
Benjamin Franklin didn’t invent electricity, it was already there and he is the first successful publicist of the concept (in fact, the Greeks had discovered this concept much earlier with static electricity). Likewise with Isaac Newton and the gravity (thanks, apple). And oftentimes, many of these ideas come about at the same time and then there’s a publicity war about who invented or discovered it first. Galileo was a proponent of the world is round theory (at a time when most of Europe believed the world was flat), but behind this theory lay the science of astronomy (and his trusty telescope). The sum of human knowledge is additive and with the more complex blocks that exist each generation, we can build even more complex paradigms, much like atoms are composed of building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons, while molecules are composed of atoms and cells are composed of molecules and so on.
An interesting idealogical ownership is the concept of plagiarism. Given how few words there are in any written language and how long it’s been being written, isn’t it inevitable that the same combinations of words come together more than once? Not just stray sentences, but entire paragraphs, even pages of words? And yet one person can own an extended string of words? Or even a few sentences, a “quote”? Or a business can own a few words strung together or even a single word (one combination of some few of our 26 letters)? This is not to say that I think any reputable author or journalist ought to copy someone else’s words intentionally, but unintentionally, I’m sure it happens all the time (not so much for pages, but for sentences and even paragraphs sure).
I do think that people ought to be able to own actual inventions (software, machine), anything complex that actually requires a significant amount of work in addition to an “idea”. Creative output, likewise, should be ownable, provided that it is complex. I’m not so sure about owning shapes or a single name or even a logo (which I know require a lot of work in some senses, but are usually just glorified letters and a pretty simple idea at that). What’s especially odd though, is that not only can people own abstract concepts, but that such ownership is transferable. If proprietary rights are all about protecting the “inventor”, then why do they go on well beyond the person’s death (I won’t say the name because it’s copyrighted but think of the famous cartoon mouse whose inventor is long since dead, but the corporation [sounds like “misery”] retains a white-knuckled grip on its longest royalty supplier). Corporations and heirs have successfully lobbied to have the copyright ownership period extended on a number of occasions, most recently in 1998 (thanks to “misery” and other vested interests).
What a different world we might have if people weren’t so vested in ownership. Unfortunately, this concept is intrinsic to capitalism which insists that we always consume (via spending money), not that we find happiness in whatever way works best. Se la vie (oops, do I owe royalties on that phrase?).
