We are, of course, talking about research to develop intellectual property. Probably most people on HN are employed in producing protected intellectual property in some way.

> Probably most people on HN are employed in producing protected intellectual property in some way.

I don't think most people on HN even believe in intellectual property conceptually, much less view their activities through that lens.

I develop software, and that software has a license (mostly AGPLv3 at this point) because I live in the real world. But it's nobody's property; it's just math.

Okay, and the companies that might utilize the space station also have to exist in the real world.

Maybe I'm just missing your line of reasoning here. I thought you were saying that you expected people on HN to rush to the defense of intellectual property as a viable abstraction for understanding (for example) software or research. Do I have it wrong?

Yes, companies exist in the real world. The real world is full of open source. And full of companies that produce open source material and don't regard it as "intellectual property" except insofar as to license it to protect themselves and their users/readers/customers.

Not if you register one while you are up there.

That's a terrible analogy. A better analogy is I could buy a bucket but somebody might (will!) take it home and use it as a footstool and I will have wasted my money.

That's not analogous, open research doesn't prevent you using it.

Presumably you think copyright infringement is theft too.

Nice ad hominem.

The problem IP laws try to solve is that the best researcher is not necessarily in the best position to execute on their discoveries. Or, worse, executing on the discovery is incredibly cheap (such as new drugs) and the value is impossible to recover. The more expensive the research, the more likely that is to be.

Research either needs to be publically funded OR some kind of limited monopoly applied.

None of this implies that the current IP mechanisms are not seriously broken.