主题：美国政府起诉中国军方人员 -- Magnocaudax

小可在纽约时报那篇主题文章的评论版上关于intellectual property发的comments，只发表出来两个，现在都贴在这里。很多观点是从陈经和其他大侠那里剽窃来的，当然啦，对我们copy-left来说，偷观点那真的不算是偷啊。

第一贴

The whole idea behind intellectual property and theft is just flawed. If you invent the wheel and so gain a comparative advantage over other people, others will only pay you to use the wheel as long as you can guard your secret. It's not like physical object which is numerically single so your obtaining MY apple necessarily means I can't have THAT apple. Other people's having the IDEA of wheel-making is not going to make the inventor of that idea lose his own idea. It only ends the inventor's monopoly over that idea. Therefore to call it a theft is a bit of a stretch of terms. The proper way to call this kind of behavior, I think, should be "monopoly-breaking". We have to be grateful to all the past monopoly-breakers for not having to pay for all the mundane techniques such as zippers, bottoms, and shoe-laces we enjoy today.

路人甲回帖：

W.A. Spitzer Faywood, New Mexico 6 hours ago

If I spend money to do the research, and you take that research without fairly compensating me, then you are taking from me, something that I spent money to buy. Seems like a pretty accurate definition of theft to me.

小可回帖：

Your "spending money to do the research" is just a METAPHOR. To break it down, in order to do the research, you spend money to buy food, drink, research equipments, etc., all of which no one has taken away from you. Properly speaking, you didn't buy the result of your research as much as Archimedes didn't buy his principle. In order to buy something you need some one to buy from. Archimedes didn't buy his principle: he DISCOVERED something which has been out there since the Big Bang. Now you can make money out of the result of your research of course, but only so long as you CAN keep it beyond the reach of others. There is no moral right whatsoever extendible beyond that point. Those who argue for such right mistake power for right. Copy "right" is enforced by power, be it political or corporate, which has much to gain from imposing such "right". Therefore it is a misconception to expect "rightful" profit from conducting research: the profit people gain from the research is contingent on 1. the POWER to protect the secret, and 2. when that power is overcome, the POWER to enforce copy "right" law.

路人乙回帖：

PK South Carolina 2 hours ago

You sound like a Chinese 50 cent poster. It's nothing like seeing a wheel and then making your own. It's an intentional theft of technology and software for the explicit purpose of avoiding paying the inventor/innovator for the hard work and expenses incurred. Similar for drug development, techniques for surgery, artificial limbs, joints, AI algorithms, etc. The problem for China is that their communist system does not allow for individual thinking outside their designated box and thus they have no innovation so they feel stealing it is better than paying for it. Stealing someone else's property has always been unethical and immoral.

小可回帖：

Sounding like a 50 cent poster is better, I think, than sounding like an IQ 50 poster. I'm challenging the very idea that the so called "intellectual property" is a property and you tell me that stealing someone else's property is unethical. Oh well! What you should be arguing, in order to refute me, is why IDEAS can be properties. Think outside the box, please.

Your "China communist therefore no innovation", again, is just an "inside of the box" argument. The a-deomcratic hierarchical imperial Germany was the leading innovator in the late 19 to the early 20th century. What was our "democratic" America doing then? Copying others, and--surprise surprise--without paying for the ideas at that. So your argument is empirically WRONG and you only believe in it because it makes you feel better. The real reason why America is the leading innovator now is because it is the leading nation with the most advanced industrial capabilities and the biggest economy. You should really work hard now to keep that status rather than simply assuming it if you don't what to see China surpass you in innovation in your life-time while still being a-democratic.

路人丙回帖：

Andrew San Francisco, CA 58 minutes ago

That's ridiculous.

If Chinese companies want to compete with foreign companies who invent, design and create superior products, then they should at least have the honor and industriousness to attempt to reverse engineer the superior foreign products, then - gasp - possibly prove upon them through Chinese smarts and creativity.

Being caught red-handed stealing ideas, technology and other forms of intellectual property from other nations' companies to try to help your inferior businesses to catch up and compete is profoundly humiliating!

It's a self-inflicted insult to China's talent, culture, and civilization. Even a nation NOT concerned with face would be embarrassed.

How shameful!

小可回帖：

Hello leading commentator! I fail to see the shame or the ridicule here. Could you please enlighten me with an argument rather than a rant?

As much as I don't think there is such a thing as stealing IDEAS, I do think there is such a thing as stealing or grabbing PHYSICAL assets of others, and that people should be ashamed if they commit such a crime--a crime in which the imperial powers specialize. What makes hoarding "intellectual property" morally questionable is precisely that it helps powers, to which intellectual properties always concentrate because they are by definition powerful, to PHYSICALLY grab the properties of others. We have to be immensely grateful that the Chinese "intellectual thieves" "stole" the idea of A-bomb from the US in the 50s-60s which checked the US from threatening physically. Make no mistake, US did make such a threat in 1951 when they were pushed back in the Korean peninsula and they only abandoned the idea because soon afterwards they withstood the Chinese spring offensive and the war finally ended in a draw.

待续。

“拿走”别人的idea造成的后果确实是你省了研究费用和时间，但却跟别人“共享”了未来的市场；而且因为你研发成本为0 ，可以说基本没有投入，你可以尽量压低产品价格，而研发者却做不到这点导致失去市场。这对idea发明者不公平

换个方向辩论吧

还不如揭露一下美帝的双重标准，谈谈snowden什么的比较理直气壮

个人认为还有几点可以谈谈。

1 知识产权保护有自身的特殊性。 和一切财产一样，保护财产有它自己的成本。不注册专利，不交专利费就不予保护，这是知识产权保护成本的体现。 已注册的专利，人人可以查阅，这是市场公平性的体现。 没有注册，公开的知识，谈不上产权，更谈不上偷和保护。

2 知识产权作为商品必须公平对待所有买家。中国资本目前在知识产权市场上常常受到不公平对待。想买，能买却买不到。 在这种前提下，当然要保留不承认相关知识产权正当性的权利。

3 知识产权保护有时存在着投资方和收益方不一致的特殊性。 在本国范围内执法，付出成本的是本国人民，而收益的是他国政府。 目前，这一矛盾主要通过相互承认、保护知识产权的方式来平衡。 可是当两国知识产权保有量明显不平衡时，矛盾一定是无法轻易平衡的。

我要出钱请两个保安来看着你的劳斯莱斯。 你却只要给我的自行车买把锁。 这怎么可能！自然的结果是，自行车的所有者只会给劳斯莱斯与锁价相当的保护。 不过这一矛盾有可能会随着知识产权相对保有量的改变而改善，甚至逆转。

从方向上来讲，应该强调中国军方的官方身份；那么美国政府作恶，中国作恶也没啥，对等么~ 如果美国不服气，可以来打一仗。。。如果美国政府不来打一仗，就shut up! 美国人最吃这个逻辑，估计马上闭嘴了~

谢谢回复！

比如说我高薪雇佣研究员，这实际上是基于可以垄断研究成果这个预期的。所以你的反驳实际上是一个petitio principii。如果没有这个预期，那么我不会高薪雇佣研究员，或者我给的薪水只会高到我可以通过我自己的能力（而非国家暴力机关的执法能力）保守我的研究成果的程度，所以实际上市场会自动调节雇佣研究院和研究费用的。而通过国家暴力机关保护私人的idea赚钱的权利，有公器私用之嫌。

可是半路上杀出一个程咬金，我发明了，你拿去卖钱了，这与我的预期严重不符啊

1.

请问你作为一个商业机构，如何跨国保护自己的研究成果？可行吗？

2.

也就只剩下这个选项了。也就是你说的

所以，如果不通过国家暴力机关（包括法院）来保护专利成果的话，最后市场调节的结果就是没有人愿意研发。

抛开意识形态啊，国家关系什么的不说，这样的结果肯定不利于人类发展。而且，你也没法跟发达国家（富有的公司）说，你发明了什么东西，别急着投入市场啊，等等我，等我的专利量跟你差不多了，我们再同时投放市场。是吧？

一人发明，进而向他人收费共享。产权所有者不能有预设立场来拒绝他人付费使用和收购要求，只能依法定价和议价。如果只保证开发者自己享有开发成果，岂不是约束他人重复开发的自由意志，令法律只服务于少数？保护专利的目的是避免重复开发和恶性竞争，让他人认识到那样做有弊无利，从而在社会范围节省研发投入，实现更高的生产效率。

实践中，这局限于产权所有者所在主权国家的司法管辖范围和有关国际条约。如果两个国家或地区缺乏共同利益，社会成员缺乏交流合作，怎么可能要求一方积极保护另一方社会成员的商业利益？中美知识产权争端的现状正是如此：于中方用户，美方产品定价或高不可企，或根本不可及。换句话说，这些付不起钱且被看不起的中国穷光蛋无论如何不是美国高大上业主们的当前或潜在客户，损害美国业主利益一事完全无从谈起！

Except for,最后一段，中国的原子弹技术来自苏联，不是美国，这样讲就是给敌人帮忙呢

中的观点确实让我大开眼界，本楼中有的回帖更是让我见识了理直气壮做贼的豪气，全然已经忘记不久前的中国还是强权的受害者，现在还没有真正成为强权，已经开始满身强权的做派。

如果你不是撑口舌之快而是真心如此认为，而且今后要在西方混的话，我只能祝你好运。

这至少证明正直和勇气。Integrity and Courage!

这个有些冤枉。版权和其他一些强力一样，总是属于强权的。这和中国是强权还是美国是强权是无关的。偷版权的是盗，不是贼，而盗总是弱者。贼，即强盗，才是强权。

并且找出一堆理由来证明合理性？甚至可以无视研发方的付出？我真是莫名惊诧。

我知道你大概是学拉丁语，语言文字估计比我强，所以我没有兴趣和你玩文字游戏。

如果你直接和对方说，中国就是美国的竞争对手，国家层面上能偷是本事，那我反而觉得理直气壮。强辩偷书非为偷，我只能惊诧了。

这些年在美抓的中国人做商业间谍的很多起了，其中两个案例是我认识的人。看在大家有缘在同一个论坛发帖，我祝你好运。

除非你人在中国大陆，否则FBI这会儿估计已经盯上你了，谁知道纽时那篇文章是不是钓鱼。

如果你人在大陆，那么就无法证明不是中国军方人员之一，所以民间声音的代表性就无法表现。

其实国际间和平时期也不缺间谍，军方也好，工业也好，这算不上什么大不了的事。新鲜的是现在的间谍早已不需要亲身涉险了，网络时代的间谍远程就可以达到以前007才能做到的刺探情报的能力，就是所谓的网络战争。

问题来了，间谍被发现之后可以通过破案抓捕，但是网络间谍就没有这么方便了，于是吃了哑巴亏的美国人只好做官方斯诺顿，在公开媒体上声讨。但是这有什么用呢，几年前美国以色列把伊朗核电站破坏掉，伊朗不也是哑巴吃黄连，登报当寻人启示有什么用。网络上这样的事多的是，纽约时报发这样的文章，只能当当祥林嫂。

关键是，这里不是版权产权的问题，因为间谍的工作就是刺探情报，用产权做文章是转移视线。前两年俄罗斯那个间谍案十几个被遣返，并没有人喊产权问题啊，否则不是被人耻笑。几个老百姓喊喊口号，可以阻止间谍的工作么，不是很小儿科么。

• 你害怕了？

观点用强力加于别人叫强辩，我想我没有做这个。

老哥您可能是做研发的，所以很反感这个说法。但是这个世界上不做研发的永远比做研发的多，大多数人的生活水平比做研发的人，或者拥有知识产权的资本家差很多。我以后会写书也会挣版税，不过我至少觉得收版税这件事情其实是不正当的。学术界有一件事其实挺好，就是你有一个观点我只有引用的时候提到是你的观点就可以了，不用花钱来买。而学者的工作由其他途径来补偿。科技研发其实也可以走这条道路的。不知道中国军工现在是不是走这条路。

小可学过拉丁语，但是不是学拉丁语的。学语言人云亦云不会危险，有异端思想比较危险，所以多谢老兄的祝福！