Not at all; I’m strongly anti-software-patent. Sorry that I gave the opposite impression. I’m much more sure that patents are bad than copyrights.

“OK enough to work for (or perhaps run?) a startup that is relying on patents for its success”

I don’t run it, but I was the third employee. We don’t rely on the patent at all, although there might come a time when we’re able to prevent other companies from competing in that particular subfield, or license it, and thus gain some competitive advantage. I sort of doubt it’ll happen anytime soon, though. And if it does happen, I’ll be more uneasy as an employee.

I cited my company’s patent as evidence that my anti-patent position isn’t quite as motivated by personal interest. On the other hand, I do have a some personal interest in an anti-patent position. Patents really only protect entrenched businesses from newcomers, and make startups’ and independents’ lives more difficult.

Those corrections don’t invalidate your main accusation, since my views remain generally consistent in supporting my desired actions. But my views are more internally consistent than you just characterized them as, and thus less likely to be self-serving.

“And to the extent that you can see possible merit in IP, you still think that your downloading is OK because the RIAA is evil and you’re not really hurting anyone.”

I don’t do any downloading myself, because I don’t listen to much music. (I’m not sure why I said that I did in my last comment. I’ve done a minuscule amount in the past, and a little non-music illegal downloading.) So my anti-RIAA beliefs are actually pretty theoretical.

And I reiterate that at this point, I’m still quite skeptical of my own views on the matter, partly for the reasons you point out, and partly because I know my own expertise in the area is still very limited. I believe that my support has more to do with wishful thinking than coherent reasoning, and will continue to believe that until I seriously engage with pro-IP arguments. If called to bet on whether those laws would actually end up helping or hurting innovation and creativity, I would take a rather conservative position. As I said in the main post, “In general, I’m fairly favorable to them, but I worry that that’s just because I identify with the anti-IP culture of internet geeks.” If that is too misleading, I apologize.

That being said, if you look at your position, it is completely self-serving. You are generally opposed to IP, but you seem to be OK with patent protection, OK enough to work for (or perhaps run?) a startup that is relying on patents for its success! And to the extent that you can see possible merit in IP, you still think that your downloading is OK because the RIAA is evil and you’re not really hurting anyone. Your position is finely calibrated to fit in perfectly with exactly what you want to do anyway. Can this possibly be mere coincidence? You have to admit that the fact that your beliefs about reality fit in so perfectly with what serves your needs and desires is a suspicious hint that bias is lurking!

(And the book I read and linked to was written by two economists, and others (like Lessig’s Free Culture) were written by lawyers. In fact, I haven’t read any blog posts or threads on the subject. I’ve probably spent about a dozen or so hours total reading on this, which is why I’m still only leaning in one direction. But any blogs I did happen to read would likely be written by academics who specialize on IP.)

So yes, there’s plenty of personal stake in the issues, if not completely lopsided, which is one reason I haven’t written anything about it. Because I don’t trust my opinions, not having enough pro-IP literature.

Now it may be merely a fortuitous coincidence that you are persuaded intellectually by the argument which happens to work out so well for your personal happiness. But you have to ask yourself if you would find anti-IP arguments so persuasive if you were in a position where your livelihood depended on protection of intellectual property. My guess is that people in that situation would have a strong bias to favor the pro-IP side, just as internet downloaders have the opposite bias.

And it’s also the case that this is an area where there is a great deal of academic and legal work. Jurists, historians, and those who specialize in the study of fields such as publishing and radio have published many books on the pros and cons of IP. How much can you hope to understand all the ramifications of the issue by spending a few hours reading message board comments and blog postings? If there is so little that needs to be understood to come up with a correct view of the facts, what fills the books which have been published on the subject?

If nothing else, you can always use your resulting knowledge of the dialectic to look smart (though insufferable) in a discussion (”That’s not a good argument for your position, because of x; a better argument for you is this one, but then of course I would respond with y’ and so on).

But I still think the *hope* that such a thing is possible is idealistic, and I imagine you could agree to that.

I agree that whether it’s possible is an empirical question (though fraught with enough philosophical and psychological questions about point of view). But, contrary to your characterization, I didn’t have in mind the ability to come to more conclusions, or to come to them more quickly, only that the judgments one does find it prudent to make are very reliable. I imagine such a person would withhold judgment much more often than others, since they would know the limitations of their knowledge. But they would be able to know when they have studied enough to be confident in taking a side on an issue. If an issue had no knowable answer given a certain level of knowledge, that person would always withhold judgment (or weight the opinions of experts, or other consensus methods) at that level of knowledge.

I suppose the bottom line remains whether it is empirically possible to acquire this level of ability. It seems intrinsically implausible that a lay person can, with a few hours of studying arguments, come to a conclusion in opposition to the consensus reached by experts who have spent their lives studying the issue, and expect to do better than them.

The strength of my revelation when I realized just how unconscious my bias had been acting was that I also try to do exactly this, and the revelation was how badly I was failing at it.

“and there is, from what I have read, little evidence”

I’d love to read someone making this case. I’ve heard that people have had little success in reducing bias by instructing people about the presence of the bias, but I haven’t read about the efficacy of more targeted/creative techniques.

“Instead, I view my agreement or disagreement with arguments primarily as a source of entertainment. My views on truth are independent of whether I agree with the arguments or not.”

An interesting and possibly workable position, but I shy away from it. I guess I’m idealistic in my belief that some people can develop their judgment to the point where it’s trustworthy, and that they can be justified in trusting it above that of experts or consensus when they need to disagree with the experts. (Although I’m happy to note that my skepticism of speed reading increased severalfold when I read about a study that showed people reading over 1000 WPM couldn’t get more than 50% comprehension, which I didn’t expect given how much I wanted it to be possible.)

Matthew, thanks.