View Single Post
Old 12-29-2011, 07:57 AM   #66
johnnyb
Cloud Reader
johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.johnnyb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,124
Karma: 4000066
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Kindle Oasis, Kindle Scribe, iPad Pro 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by osnova View Post
And yet, differences there are:
1. Tangible property is pretty much fungible (unless it's a work of art or protected by a patent). IP is not. So, monopoly over IP is monopoly over a unique product. To make my point, think of somebody owning the Grand Canyon or entire Mississippi. Which leads us to the second point.
Ok, so what about money. This is an intangible property, too. Should, what has not been spent by heirs 70 years after the moneymaker's death be released into public domain (which it is somehow in the form of inheritance tax but this is a bit of a one-sided institution that does not include corporations).
And to defend my claim that money is intangible while it is potentially tied to tangibility: if money is not spent, that is, tied to tangible goods, it is unnecessary (with certain exceptions that do not violate the rule).
johnnyb is offline   Reply With Quote