posted
So we have two concepts in SF. Time travel, and what you might think of as sideways time travel, or moving from one parallel universe to another.
This creates some ethical questions. If I, for example, were to travel back to the 70s to before Erno Rubik invented his cube, and I were to "invent" it, I'd have clear temporal precedence, but I would have stolen his idea, and not only profited from it, but prevented him from profiting from it.
Is this theft? Is there an ethical question here, or do we simply say that in the new timeline, Rubik simply got there too late?
Similar questions arise concerning parallel worlds. If I go to the world next door, find a scientific innovation, and bring it back here, am I stealing from whoever would have invented it here? How about if the person who would have invented it here invented it there a year earlier and I copied it. In a sense, that's just like the first case of time travel, but in another, it's really the same as taking the idea from someone utterly unconnected, which really isn't any different than importing an idea from one place to another.
I was pondering this a few weeks ago, and when I raised the question to my father (the Rubik's cube example), he was immediately sure that it would be stealing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In both cases, the idea still came from the original source; you just used it "first". Of course, the source may never know that it was taken from them- they may think it's simply a case of parallel thought development- but it's still being taken, a.k.a. stolen, from that source.
I suppose the question gets a little more interesting if, rather than develop the idea a year before Rubik invented the cube, you develop it a year before he was born. Then, by the time Rubik would have invented the cube, it's already part of the public consciousness, and Rubik might well put his mind to a different and worthy focus.
I'd still think it's stealing, but it might be less morally dubious.
This kind of thing came to mind for me with the revelation that Sid Meier (of Civilization et. al.) ran a group that pirated computer games back in the day when Atari was a major computer manufacturer. Piracy deprives developers of revenue, of course, but during the pre-internet era we're talking about maybe a few hundred game copies passed around, not the kind of mass "freeleases" possible now. And without the knowledge that came from studying what was out there, Meier might never have become the master game designer he is today. Do I really think the computer game industry would be better served if Meier was serving a lengthy prison sentence?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the question is, just because someone invented it in a parallel universe, does that make it certain that they would've invented it in our universe?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Idea theft" is not really theft, because nobody "owns" an idea and the original creator of the idea still possesses that idea no matter how many people take it.
Instead, it's a violation of an implied contract: "I'll reveal my idea to you as long as you don't use it to hurt my ability to profit from it." It's more akin to lying than stealing.
So, if you took an idea with the understanding that it was not your idea, you can't go back in time and pretend that it was your idea. That's a violation of the contract, even if you've gone back in time before the contract is written.
Unless we think agreements are all voided if we go back in time before the agreement is made.... If you say you'll never sell the watch you grandmother left you, but then you go back in time before you made that agreement, is it okay to sell the watch? I'd think the contract you made still holds true, since you made the agreement in YOUR past, even if your past is actually the rest of the world's future.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: "Idea theft" is not really theft, because nobody "owns" an idea and the original creator of the idea still possesses that idea no matter how many people take it.
Instead, it's a violation of an implied contract: "I'll reveal my idea to you as long as you don't use it to hurt my ability to profit from it." It's more akin to lying than stealing.
So, if you took an idea with the understanding that it was not your idea, you can't go back in time and pretend that it was your idea. That's a violation of the contract, even if you've gone back in time before the contract is written.
Unless we think agreements are all voided if we go back in time before the agreement is made.... If you say you'll never sell the watch you grandmother left you, but then you go back in time before you made that agreement, is it okay to sell the watch? I'd think the contract you made still holds true, since you made the agreement in YOUR past, even if your past is actually the rest of the world's future.
Ah, but in the case of the parallel worlds, my implied contract is with a parallel inventor, and not with his equivalent in our world. So is it okay then?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or... suppose you do something that results in the inventor never being born. Is that murder? If it happens inadvertantly, simply because your presence in the past disrupted things, but the inventor you had the implied contract with is never born, is it okay to "invent" it yourself then?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This creates some ethical questions. If I, for example, were to travel back to the 70s to before Erno Rubik invented his cube, and I were to "invent" it, I'd have clear temporal precedence, but I would have stolen his idea, and not only profited from it, but prevented him from profiting from it.
Is this theft? Is there an ethical question here, or do we simply say that in the new timeline, Rubik simply got there too late?
I think you owe Rubik #1 some money and Rubik #2 is SOL.
(Oh wait, I meant this for the this for the parallel universes portion of the event. I think if a jatraquero invents a time machine, patent law will be the least of our concerns.
I'm pretty sure there'd be dinosaurs.)
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, laws with an assumption of one way temporal continuity might all become irrelevant.
Ethically, absent a framework in which patent law can be effective, there's no reason not to use somebody else's idea, and probably little economic benefit to doing so - someone can always preempt you in turn.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read a book a month or so ago in which this was taking place. Specifically with Rubik's Cube, but also with other inventions. Of course, I absolutely can NOT recall what it was now, just that it was a recommendation from someone.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Imagine going back in time to Shakespeare's day and convincing old Will, "Romeo just hasn't got the right ring to it. How about Darth Mauve and Juliet."
Another problem with some of this, to make sure you go back and patent your idea for the cube before Rubik invents it, you go back before he was born.
But at that time there wouldn't be the plastics or necessary casting skills to manufacture a light weight, inexpensive, toy with such small movable parts. A $50, 40lb brass and aluminum Rubik's Cube wouldn't catch on. Trust me.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, no, sorry, don't think I'll trust you. Enro Rubik was born July 13, 1944. The Erector Set, arguably a much more mechanically complicated toy, was invented in 1911. I think the only thing absent from mass-producing a Rubik's Cube-equivalent in the era was plastics, and I don't think the design would necessarily lose anything from being made of, say, painted wood. Whether such a toy would have caught on in the era is another question, of course; zeitgeist is a finnacky beast.
I think there are things one would have to know about the scenario before one can readily make moral decisions regarding it, not least of which whether one's departure and reappearance in the timeline/alternate reality causes yet another timeline/alternate reality to spin-off, so to speak.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or... suppose you do something that results in the inventor never being born. Is that murder? If it happens inadvertantly, simply because your presence in the past disrupted things, but the inventor you had the implied contract with is never born, is it okay to "invent" it yourself then?
By this logic, travel to the past would inevitably involve murdering an infinite number of potential people. But the whole "cause not to be born" = "murder" argument doesn't work for me with abortion, either. I think there will be a lot of ethical questions around that. Simply by interacting in the past, you alter subtle things - even if you delay the conception of a single individual by a minute or so (one sperm succeeding vs. another) you wipe out an entire genetic line of your own future.
But, should you end up back in time, and have already altered things, I don't see any problem with "improving" that parallel branch of the timeline by "seeding" it with ideas. For instance, publishing articles about the dangers of leaded gasoline and CFCs before they achieved widespread use.
If I'm in another timeline in a parallel dimension, I would think it would be more of an ethical dilemma *not* to share what I know for the good of everyone in that timeline. Imagine if we had someone in our timeline that had the cure for cancer or HIV, but wouldn't share it because of wishing not to impact the timeline.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, as for the Rubik's Cube... I'm thinking a wooden version would have been more expensive/laborious to create than an assembly line of molded plastic, and probably wouldn't have had as much of an instant "mega" sales impact, or as much of a profit margin.
posted
At what point does the potential benefit of an invention make it incumbent that a time traveler steal it? Of course, most inventions involve a development curve, thinking of heart bypass surgery or such like.
I also find it puzzling that no time travellers have shown up. It rather suggests that backward time travel will never be developed. Unless everyone who has travelled backward in time has done something mercenary such as become president of the United States.
But getting back to the ethical question, I'd say it's just as much stealing as going back and sleeping with someone before you were technically married to your spouse is adultery.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot hinges upon whether it is possible to go back to your home timeline.
If this is possible, then actions in the alternate timeline have less justification.
If this is impossible, then everyone in your alternate timeline is essentially "dead" to you, as all of those relationships have stopped and will never progress past the point when you went backward in time.
The timeline you are in is now irrevocably altered, as you are in it. I'd think it is your ethical responsibility to save as many people as possible by giving advanced warning of disasters and inventing/causing-to-be-invented helpful tools.
As for the adultery thing, the spouse you married would essentially be dead, as you would be to your spouse.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or... suppose you do something that results in the inventor never being born. Is that murder? If it happens inadvertantly, simply because your presence in the past disrupted things, but the inventor you had the implied contract with is never born, is it okay to "invent" it yourself then?
By this logic, travel to the past would inevitably involve murdering an infinite number of potential people. But the whole "cause not to be born" = "murder" argument doesn't work for me with abortion, either. I think there will be a lot of ethical questions around that.
Interesting. So maybe the Catholic Church would declare time travel to be a sin based on that? That might make a cool story.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I also find it puzzling that no time travellers have shown up. It rather suggests that backward time travel will never be developed. Unless everyone who has travelled backward in time has done something mercenary such as become president of the United States.
Well, there's Niven's Law (one of them, anyway), which says that in any universe where it's possible to travel back in time (prior to the invention of time travel) and change things, such time travel will never be invented. Because the ability to make such changes will inevitably result in such changes, and things will change until by pure chance, time travel is not invented. That's the point of equilibrium.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
