Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

Intellectual Property Is Childish

·

When children play with Legos, violence sometimes ensues.

“He knocked down my tower!”

“Only because she built it to look exactly like the one I made, and that’s not fair. I made mine first!”

All the parents I’ve ever met handle this situation by pointing out to the aggressor that it is perfectly acceptable for other kids to build things that mimic his own creations; in fact, he should feel honored!

But let’s visit a household wherein the parents are strict advocates and respecters of intellectual property. In this house, children are punished for copying their siblings. Any new Lego ideas, whether actually built or not, are immediately filed with the parent, and every time Lego building takes place, the children must first check the files to make sure they aren’t about to build something that someone else had already thought of and filed. No imitation is allowed in this household.

This is, of course, an absurd environment, and the main source of learning for children, imitation, is being crushed while some of the most beastly childlike tendencies — spite and anger at others’ success and an overwhelmingly selfish desire for all the attention — are nurtured. This is also the environment faced by all inventors, entrepreneurs, creators and businesses in any legal structure that enforces IP laws.

Let’s fast-forward a few decades. The IP-conscious parent gets a call from their grown-up child complaining about how he designed and built a beautiful garden, but the neighbor loved it so much he put in an identical twin next door. The good parent would immediately sympathize with the victimized child and come over with some shovels and firearms and help his son destroy the thieving neighbors’ copycat garden, and demand some payment from the neighbor at gunpoint, to boot.

This is only fair, of course, because this gardening son built the garden for profit, not just pleasure. It was so grand that he planned to sell tickets to people who wished to walk through and enjoy its splendor. How could he do so when the neighbor’s identical garden could be walked through for free?

It seems easy to spot the ridiculous and childish nature of anti-copying arguments in these examples, but there is no significant difference in the real world of IP law. Ideas, unlike physical goods, are not scarce. The neighbor can build his garden without so much as a single fern being removed from the other.

Garden design is an idea. Some argue that it’s not the idea of garden itself that’s being stolen, but the value it could produce. Even in the case of physical goods, no one has a right to a certain market value. If I steal your car, your property rights are violated. If a manufacturer designs a slew of new cars that make yours far less valued in the market, your rights are not violated, because you never had a right to a given resale value.

Many people argue that the real need for IP law arises when we’re talking about companies making multibillion dollar investments in R&D, not merely five-figure gardens. What incentive is there to pursue such costly innovations with no promise of reward for the effort? There are several problems with this analysis. First, even with current IP laws, there is no guarantee of profit. How many billions of R&D dollars are spent on projects that end up yielding no return? Consumers are fickle, and IP doesn’t guarantee they’ll like your product, no matter how much you spend on research.

Second, the massive R&D sticker price is somewhat deceiving. Drug companies, for example, are not spending billions of dollars of the CEO’s money. Instead, they are spending billions of dollars of shareholder money. Most shareholders have shares amounting to thousands, and they have portfolios with money spread across many companies and industries. Even if a $1 billion R&D project is fruitless, the losses are actually not that acute.

But let’s say they are. Let’s pretend a single individual had a great idea and they could devote their entire life and livelihood to developing it. Surely, without the security of IP law, they would have no incentive to do so, right? How do you explain a fashion designer whose every energy goes into designs that can be immediately copied in the IP-free fashion industry? How do you explain football coaches who spend years developing and perfecting new schemes and plays only to have the best of them immediately adopted by inferior coaches across the league?

Do you think the NFL would be more dynamic and innovative if coaches could copyright their plays? What if no one were allowed to use the cover 2 defense except its creator? The spread offense? The I formation?

Thankfully, no such IP laws exist in football. Do you think we’re suffering a lack of innovation for it? Are there innovative coaches sitting on the sidelines with amazingly innovative plays, failing to use them for fear they won’t reap enough reward in a copycat league?

IP law is not necessary to incentivize innovation. There are no guarantees of success or uniqueness in the market, yet entrepreneurs and investors put significant resources into innovation every day, apparently willing to hazard the risk. IP law stifles, rather than encourages, innovation.

Not only is IP unnecessary, it is a holdover from our nursery days before we learned that it’s not OK to be possessive little tyrants who demand no one copy their babbling noises, Lego towers and Crayon scribbles. IP laws are childish and bring out the kind of nasty and immature backbiting that parents work so hard to correct in their kids. Let’s grow up and quit trying to hold back the beauty and dynamism of a world where ideas are free.

Issac Morehouse

Author Image for Isaac Morehouse

Isaac Morehouse

Isaac Morehouse is gifts officer at the Institute for Humane Studies. Email.

View

  • http://visualnovelaer.wordpress.com/ Aaeru

    Here’s a quote from Boldrin and Levine’s book, Against Intellectual Monopoly.

    “Being a monopolist” is, apparently, akin to going on drugs or
    joining some strange religious sect. It seems to lead to complete loss
    of any sense of what profitable opportunities are and of how free
    markets function. Monopolists, apparently, can conceive of only one way
    of making money, that is bullying consumers and competitors to put up or
    shut up. Furthermore, it also appears to mean that past mistakes have
    to be repeated at a larger, and ever more ridiculous, scale.

    Boldrin and Levine
    https://sharingisliberty.wordpress.com/

    • Brian

      Time for a self-evalution test!

      You are:

      A. A Marxist who believes everything must be communally shared.

      B. An Envier who doesn’t have the ability to create your own commercially viable intellectual property and resent the reality of someone else becoming wealthy off of royalties while you must grind away at the mercy of earned income.

      C. Entitled and feel you have a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor for free.

      D. Any two of the above.

      E. All of the above.

      • Guest

        What has marxism got to do with IP? Don’t mix politics with other issues. Just because anyone opposes IP it doesn’t mean they:

        A) want everything for free.

        B) lack creativity and can’t invent anything or resent others for profiting from their works (ironically, pro-IP people get mad when someone profits from their works).

        C) feel entitled to benefit from others’ work for free. And that’s hypocritical because creative
        works and inventions always draw from other works. It doesn’t just come from a void.

        Don’t give false labels to people who disagree with you.

        The IP system rewards –or attempts to reward– the guy who publishes first, and screws over the rest of society by locking them out. The purpose of IP is to maximize the amount of inventions and creative works, but it fails terribly at its goals. What’s worse, without the
        state policing everyone, it would be unenforceable.

        Just an example: copyright concentrates the rights for each work on a few’s hands — the rights owners — and excludes anyone not authorized by the rights holders to expand, remix, adapt, or translate anything belonging to the work. If you want to do so, you’ll have to contact and — almost certainly — pay a hefty fee for a license of limited scope, and they might reserve the right to do whatever they want with your derivative. The rights owners may also refuse to license anything at all. Even if you get a license and publish it, you got ripped-off because the rights owners didn’t contribute anything to your project and you had to pay them for sitting around. They just earned money off you without lifting a finger.

        Even worse, copyright does not actually guarantee that the rights owners will produce more works. They can just piggyback off their existing works while the dust settles, essentially negating the alleged benefits of copyright.

        Another horrendous thing about IP is that any work or invention perceived as a little bit too similar to another can get its author sued, especially in the case of patents, since plaintiffs need not show that the infringer knew about the patent.

        People also tend to mercilessly ridicule the works regarded as unoriginal while ignoring its good aspects, just like the Lego tower example in the article. Originality is not an end in itself. Just because something is original it doesn’t make it good.

        If profiting from someone else’s work was immoral, then the public domain should be abolished and everyone should start their projects from scratch. No remixing or adaptation allowed, don’t you think so?

        Moving on to patents, which are way worse. Not only is the system fundamentally flawed since there are companies — Non-Practicing Entities — that amass significant patent portfiolios, don’t contribute anything, and exist solely to sue for patent infringement, but it wastes billions in court fees in long, drawn-out legal battles without bringing any benefit to society.

        Another issue with patents: laboratories in third-world countries replicate patented medicines — such as AIDS medication — and sell generic versions for a fraction of the price since people in those areas can’t afford the full price. This, of course, draws the ire of the company that owns the patent and sues the infringing companies. After the generic drug is no longer available, people have no other choice than to forgo medication.

        Instead of encouraging the improvement and continuation of existing works to reach new heights, Intellectual Property promotes the elimination of legitimate competition to keep those who are already established at the top while raising barriers to entry for those without luck.

        There are many more critical issues with IP, but those are a few.

        If you need an example on why copyright and patents aren’t needed for an industry to thrive, you can look at the fashion industry, just as it’s been pointed out in the article.

        • Brian

          Your response is so riddled with holes that I really don’t know where to begin, but I will try.

          Before we get to the meat of your argument:

          First of all,”politics” is an abstraction like “economics”. You will need to be specific like the electoral college process or how a bill becomes law or who is in charge of the executive branch, etc.

          Secondly, Marxism is not confined to one thing. It is a belief system and a paradigm. If you are a Marxist then everything you encounter in life is filtered through this prism. As a result, everything then gets Marxism applied to it.

          Thirdly, I do not give false labels to people who disagree with me. I accurately describe the nature of my opponents arguments. To throw a cliche’ in here “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck”. Or a little math, if a=b and b=c, then a=c. In other words, if you are making the same argument as a Marxist then you are most likely a Marxist whether you know it or not.

          The reason I say “you” are either A, B, C, D, or E from the previous post is the underlying premise or thesis of all the IP opposition arguments I have read on this site are one or more of those I stated. There may be different or even better arguments elsewhere but I have yet to see them here.

          I have also said that I agree that IP should be a civil matter and not a criminal one and that there are abuses to the system, but that does not mean the idea of IP laws themselves are bad.

          Now to your argument: which by the way, you completely make my case:

          • “The IP system rewards –or attempts to reward– the guy who publishes first, and screws over the rest of society by locking them out.”

          1. So should the people who didn’t publish be rewarded and the guy who did publish not be rewarded? (By the way since you obviously don’t know this is wealth redistribution and Marxism.)

          2. Locks who out from what? This doesn’t prevent anyone else from writing and publishing there “own” work.

          3. Screws over who? Society benefits because they get to read a great story they didn’t have to write and publish or a new song they didn’t have write and record, etc. The owner of the work benefits because he is rewarded for his hard work. A win-win!

          • “copyright concentrates the rights for each work on a few’s hands — the rights owners — and excludes anyone not authorized by the rights holders to expand, remix, adapt, or translate anything belonging to the work. If you want to do so, you’ll have to contact and — almost certainly — pay a hefty fee for a license of limited scope, and they might reserve the right to do whatever they want with your derivative.”

          1. So what! Go create your own original work and don’t worry about. That is unless you aren’t capable of that. Then I could see why you are envious of those who do.

          • “Even if you get a license and publish it, you got ripped-off because the rights owners didn’t contribute anything to your project and you had to pay them for sitting around. They just earned money off you without lifting a finger.”

          1. Huh? Without lifting a finger? He only created the original that YOU are trying to rip off. The one trying to get something for nothing or a lot for very little is you. Sounds like you believe you are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor for free.

          (I pause briefly to point out that you are an [E.] all of the above.
          We now return to our regularly scheduled debate…)

          • “Even worse, copyright does not actually guarantee that the rights owners will produce more works. They can just piggyback off their existing works while the dust settles, essentially negating the alleged benefits of copyright.”

          1. So what if he doesn’t produce more works. He may be a one hit wonder or he may decide to do something else, you know a little thing called Liberty.

          2. Copyright does not protect future works that may never exist (and was never meant to) but only works that have been produced.

          • “People also tend to mercilessly ridicule the works regarded as unoriginal while ignoring its good aspects.”

          1. Sounds like this is coming from personal experience.

          2. “mercilessly ridicule” is melodramatic. How about accurately describe it as unoriginal.

          3. “good aspects” is highly subjective. It may in fact not have any.

          • “If profiting from someone else’s work was immoral, then the public domain should be abolished and everyone should start their projects from scratch. No remixing or adaptation allowed, don’t you think so?”

          1. No. In the public domain means the copyright has expired and is free for anyone to use. Eventually all copyrights expire and the work is turned over to the public. Sounds fair to me.

          • “companies that amass significant patent portfiolios, don’t contribute anything, and exist solely to sue for patent infringement, but it wastes billions in court fees in long, drawn-out legal battles without bringing any benefit to society.”

          1. Congrats! This one you got right. Its an abuse of IP laws.

          If you need more reasons why we have IP laws start with reading the Declaration of Independence then the Constitution. Be sure and check out Article I, Section 8.8.

          • Guest

            Here’s my reply. Beware, it’s quite lengthy.

            *1. So should the people who didn’t publish be rewarded and the guy who did publish not be rewarded? (By the way since you obviously don’t know this is wealth redistribution and Marxism.)

            The problem is that you think of exclusion as an addition, when it is in fact a subtraction. Everyone but the author gets excluded; there are no gains. No one under the current system is forced to publish their works, and there are no advantages to not publishing, so I don’t understand where you’re getting at.

            *2. Locks who out from what? This doesn’t prevent anyone else from writing and publishing there “own” work.

            It locks out society out of the work. And no, it doesn’t prevent anyone from publishing their own work, but the author gets a lock on everything on “his” work: characters, plot, lyrics, etc., and people who make, fan works, too similar a work, or derivative works may get sued.

            *3. Screws over who? Society benefits because they get to read a great story they didn’t have to write and publish or a new song they didn’t have write and record, etc. The owner of the work benefits because he is rewarded for his hard work. A win-win!

            Yes, society may get a story or song, but they are excluded from translating, adapting, remixing, building upon, etc. that work. In the case of digital works, people are sometimes barred from transferring ownership, or selling their (lawfully purchsed) copies to a third party. Not to mention those horrible restrictions (region-locking, limited number of uses or devices, always online requirements, etc.). The system does not guarantee rewards for the author; he only has an exclusive monopoly.

            If the owner wants to keep his music to himself, he can; he doesn’t have to publish it. Once you publish it, however, don’t expect to be able to prevent it from being copied.

            *1. So what! Go create your own original work and don’t worry about. That is unless you aren’t capable of that. Then I could see why you are envious of those who do.

            This is where we differ by the most. Truly original, new, never before seen work does not exist: existing works always build upon those in the past. Creativity doesn’t come from a void; it comes from reassembling what is already there in new ways. We can’t outright create something new; it always comes from mixing something already existing.

            Authors draw inspiration from earlier works to produce their own, so why should the same not be done with their works for over a century?

            *1. Huh? Without lifting a finger? He only created the original that YOU are trying to rip off. The one trying to get something for nothing or a lot for very little is you. Sounds like you believe you are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor for free.

            The author of the original worked for his story, and that’s fine, but he profited off the other guy without having contributed anything to the derivative. The derivative’s author could well have dedicated his time to another project (why should he have to?). You’re saying it’s the fruits of the original’s work (and his work only, I presume). This seems to imply that everything in the work is completely original and doesn’t bear similarity to any other work, which is clearly impossible. I believe the “fruits” thing could be put backwards: the original’s author, who has already written his own book, thinks he’s also entitled to the fruits of the derivative’s author for free.

            *(I pause briefly to point out that you are an [E.] all of the above. We now return to our regularly scheduled debate…)

            Totally unnecessary remark. Believe what you want.

            *1. So what if he doesn’t produce more works. He may be a one hit wonder or he may decide to do something else, you know a little thing called Liberty.

            What about the liberty of the rest then? The problem with that is that copyright’s purpose is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. Making one hit, then quitting while everyone is locked out from continuing unless they submit to demands and conditions to get a limited license is hardly promoting the progress of the Arts. The author may keep receiving money without working for having produced that work years ago. This is why copyright fails at its goal.

            On a related note, we have orphan works: works whose rights owner cannot be reached. These works are left in stasis as no one is willing to take the risk of getting sued. They are lost in time since they can’t be re-released until their copyright expires.

            *2. Copyright does not protect future works that may never exist (and was never meant to) but only works that have been produced.

            True that. However, restrictions to the re-use of works are an aberration and should not exist, although authors’ moral rights (attribution, defense against misattribution, preservation of the integrity of the work) should still be respected. Current works would not exist without prior ones to base themselves on.

            *1. Sounds like this is coming from personal experience.

            No, to the contrary: this has nothing to do with me. I’m sick of people saying “’X’ copied
            ‘Y’. How unoriginal! It sucks!” Here’s an example: games like “Blockscape” are accused of being total Minecraft rip-offs, while Minecraft, which is praised worldwide, is itself based on Infiminer. I guess we should all be playing Infiminer, since the other two games are so “unoriginal”. It doesn’t matter if you liked one of the “rip-offs” more.

            *2. “mercilessly ridicule” is melodramatic. How about accurately describe it as unoriginal.

            Originality by itself shouldn’t be a basis for quality, much less a reason to reject a work.

            *3. “good aspects” is highly subjective. It may in fact not have any.

            That goes either way: it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any good aspects either.

            *1. No. In the public domain means the copyright has expired and is free for anyone to use. Eventually all copyrights expire and the work is turned over to the public. Sounds fair to me.

            This is where the main contradiction in your argument lies: You say it’s wrong to benefit from the fruits of others’ labor for free while believing at the same time
            that using works from the public domain is okay. If using the fruits of other’s hard work without paying is inherently wrong, then the public domain is wrong and should be eliminated. This is why many copyright proponents are hypocrites.

            Case in point: look at Disney’s classic movies, such as Cinderella, Robin Hood, Snow White, etc. They drew heavy inspiration from classic children’s tales that have been around for centuries. Disney used someone’s work without paying, therefore, according to the above, Disney is wrong, no matter how much effort they put in it. You can’t whine when people copy you while you copy others yourself.

            You also ignored my points about the fashion industry. Innovation keeps happening non-stop there, yet there’s no IP protection there.

            I have a final question for you: If copyright fails at its stated goal, namely, promoting the progress of Science and the useful Arts, then of what use is it for us? On a related note: if copyright is so essential to creation, why wasn’t it invented earlier?

          • Brian

            I am not going to respond to all of your points because quite frankly they are illogical and don’t make a lot of sense. I apologize because its harsh, but I will respond to a few though:

            • “Truly original, new, never before seen work does not exist: existing works always build upon those in the past. Creativity doesn’t come from a void; it comes from reassembling what is already there in new ways. We can’t outright create something new; it always comes from mixing something already existing.”

            Wrong. Granted this is one way to create something new and that is to synthesize old elements, but there are other ways. Another would be to take an old idea and add something entirely new to it. And yet another way is to completely create something entirely new. Yes it can and does happen. Just because you have never seen or experienced it doesn’t mean that its impossible. I KNOW that it does.

            • “This is where the main contradiction in your argument lies: You say it’s wrong to benefit from the fruits of others’ labor for free while believing at the same time that using works from the public domain is okay. If using the fruits of other’s hard work without paying is inherently wrong, then the public domain is wrong and should be eliminated. This is why many copyright proponents are hypocrites.”

            There are no contradictions in my argument. Unlike you, I do not have a conclusion in search of facts or a justificatioin for my illegal behavior, but I base my conclusion on a proven hypothesis through truth, logic, principles, real world examples, personal experience and wisdom based on a Judeo-Christian Ethic. About the public Domain: First of all, there are those who do not want to profit from their work so they release it immediately to the Public Domain. They want people to use it. In other words you have their permission. Secondly its not hypocritical. IP protection was never meant to be an infinite protection. It was always meant to be temporary to give the author or inventor time to recoup his investment. It would then be released to let others in society have a chance at improving on it. This is a brilliant balance between individual rights and the advancement of arts and science on a societal level. We are not opposed to the public domain. We are opposed to being forced into it prematurely though.

            • “Originality by itself shouldn’t be a basis for quality, much less a reason to reject a work.”

            I never said it was.

            • “You also ignored my points about the fashion industry. Innovation keeps happening non-stop there, yet there’s no IP protection there.”

            Fashion changes every season. There is no advantage to copyright protection.

            • “I have a final question for you: If copyright fails at its stated goal, namely, promoting the progress of Science and the useful Arts, then of what use is it for us?”

            It doesn’t fail. It is good for it’s original purpose.

            • “On a related note: if copyright is so essential to creation, why wasn’t it invented earlier?”

            Copyright is not essential to the creation process at all. It is essential for the protection to monetize easily copyable products.

            The only real common thread I can piece together in you argument is a justification for doing unauthorized derivative works. I suspect that you probably make hacks, mash-ups, fan works, etc. yourself. You want it to be legal so that you can get recognition and/or money for it. You believe that what you are doing is valid and its the system keeping you from your prize. But suppose that what you are doing isn’t valid at all? Then you could quit wasting time raging against the machine. You could also explore your own creative potential. You might find that all that creative energy you are churning in derivative works could be used for your own original creations. Who knows you may be the next budding George Lucas. You may even find yourself creating completely original works. It is possible!

            At the very least do derivatives of Public Domain stuff. You won’t run into legal issues there. By the way, that is what Disney did. They took Public Domain stuff added their own original stuff to it. Because they significantly changed it and added their own work to it, they were able to copyright the new synthesized derivative work. So you could go to Grimm for material and do what they did. It made them wealthy!

            Good Luck!

          • Brian

            I am not going to respond to all of your points because quite frankly they are illogical and don’t make a lot of sense. I apologize because its harsh, but I will respond to a few though:

            • “Truly original, new, never before seen work does not exist: existing works always build upon those in the past. Creativity doesn’t come from a void; it comes from reassembling what is already there in new ways. We can’t outright create something new; it always comes from mixing something already existing.”

            Wrong. Granted this is one way to create something new and that is to synthesize old elements, but there are other ways. Another would be to take an old idea and add something entirely new to it. And yet another way is to completely create something entirely new. Yes it can and does happen. Just because you have never seen or experienced it doesn’t mean that its impossible. I KNOW that it does.

            • “This is where the main contradiction in your argument lies: You say it’s wrong to benefit from the fruits of others’ labor for free while believing at the same time that using works from the public domain is okay. If using the fruits of other’s hard work without paying is inherently wrong, then the public domain is wrong and should be eliminated. This is why many copyright proponents are hypocrites.”

            There are no contradictions in my argument. Unlike you, I do not have a conclusion in search of facts or a justificatioin for my illegal behavior, but I base my conclusion on a proven hypothesis through truth, logic, principles, real world examples, personal experience and wisdom based on a Judeo-Christian Ethic. About the public Domain: First of all, there are those who do not want to profit from their work so they release it immediately to the Public Domain. They want people to use it. In other words you have their permission. Secondly its not hypocritical. IP protection was never meant to be an infinite protection. It was always meant to be temporary to give the author or inventor time to recoup his investment. It would then be released to let others in society have a chance at improving on it. This is a brilliant balance between individual rights and the advancement of arts and science on a societal level. We are not opposed to the public domain. We are opposed to being forced into it prematurely though.

            • “Originality by itself shouldn’t be a basis for quality, much less a reason to reject a work.”

            I never said it was.

            • “You also ignored my points about the fashion industry. Innovation keeps happening non-stop there, yet there’s no IP protection there.”

            Fashion changes every season. There is no advantage to copyright protection.

            • “I have a final question for you: If copyright fails at its stated goal, namely, promoting the progress of Science and the useful Arts, then of what use is it for us?”

            It doesn’t fail. It is good for it’s original purpose.

            • “On a related note: if copyright is so essential to creation, why wasn’t it invented earlier?”

            Copyright is not essential to the creation process at all. It is essential for the protection to monetize easily copyable products.

            The only real common thread I can piece together in you argument is a justification for doing unauthorized derivative works. I suspect that you probably make hacks, mash-ups, fan works, etc. yourself. You want it to be legal so that you can get recognition and/or money for it. You believe that what you are doing is valid and its the system keeping you from your prize. But suppose that what you are doing isn’t valid at all? Then you could quit wasting time raging against the machine. You could also explore your own creative potential. You might find that all that creative energy you are churning in derivative works could be used for your own original creations. Who knows you may be the next budding George Lucas. You may even find yourself creating completely original works. It is possible!

            At the very least do derivatives of Public Domain stuff. You won’t run into legal issues there. By the way, that is what Disney did. They took Public Domain stuff added their own original stuff to it. Because they significantly changed it and added their own work to it, they were able to copyright the new synthesized derivative work. So you could go to Grimm for material and do what they did. It made them wealthy!

            Good Luck!

  • Keith Lofstrom

    Apparently, few people in this discussion have patents and license them. I do, and my opposition to patents stems from my experience as an “inventor” as opposed to my previous work as a consulting engineer.

    A patent claim is a string of words purporting to be a description of an object, material, or process, and recently a software algorithm or business method. While it cannot use the same words as another patent, it can use the very same idea expressed differently. Texas Instruments did this with one of my patents, and with some of my other public domain ideas. A patent does NOT have to describe something that works, much less demonstrate functionality. A patent does not have to be understandable by a peer; most patents are not. The bar is very low; the patent office will issue patents for almost anything. That is how they make money (after one “office action” so they can collect another fee). The patent office is a cash cow for Congress and the legal profession (pardon my redundancy).

    A patent protects nothing. It is a license to sue, to spend a million dollars in court attempting to take money from someone who makes products customers want to buy. Some large companies use “my” patented ideas without permission, and unless I spend the rest of my life in court, I am unlikely to get a dime from them. Other companies pay my license fees because of the design and consulting services I give them – and because I have fundamental patents, they are more likely to prevail in court if a patent troll with a “thesaurus patent” ( same idea different words ) comes after them.

    The original idea for U.S. patents was to reward European guild craftsmen for coming to America and spilling the beans on trade secrets, in return for a temporary monopoly (as opposed to the permanent monopoly the guilds had). This was against liberty, but encouraging domestic manufacture (especially of war materials) was a strategic necessity for a young republic surrounded by a hostile British navy. “Intellectual Property” is a neologism from the 1960s, and had nothing to do with the original motivation. Study Eli Whitney, Charles Goodyear, Orville Wright, Nikola Telsa, and others to find out how the legal system treats real innovators; at least they don’t burn as witches anymore.

    Now, patents are used to prevent domestic competition against large corporations who manufacture products in China. Real innovation does not come from sitting in a chair in an empty room, inspired by brilliant thoughts; it comes from working with material stuff and working people, watching inefficiency and mistakes and confusion, and seeking a better way. That process is disappearing in the US, and patents are a big reason for that. A US patent on a manufacturing process is inapplicable in China, though it is helpful for getting a Chinese patent. Lots of luck enforcing the Chinese patent unless you have Chinese friends with guangxi (influence, connections), and if you have such friends you don’t need the patent to prevail.

    Patents do not replace each other; they are incremental. If you patent a three legged stool, then someone making a four legged stool or adding a back (making a chair) owes you for the three out of the four legs. If they patent the back, then you cannot build your own patented stool with a back, unless you get their permission. Invention becomes a series of horse trades and cross-licensing and power games. Chances are, if you are pursuing the object (a folding stool) as part of a brilliant new business idea (rental chairs for people lined up at the Apple store to buy the newest iGizmo) then the licensing negotiations will disclose your business idea, not to the world at large as a patent is supposed to do, but to the business rivals your licensing “partners” might be working with.

    I’ve seen quite a few innovative startups destroyed by patents for this reason. Sarif (a startup I helped) intended to break the duopoly (Sharp/Sony) for LCD computer projector image chips, partly with a clever technology for column driver gamma correction they licensed from Sarnoff Labs. However, the pixel array switches were covered by a vast array of patents (many overlapping the same ideas, most owned by patent trolls). Sarif’s lawyers told them to avoid researching pixel array switches – if they “inadvertently” copied an idea patented by Sony, they were liable for 1x damages in court, but if they had done their research and saw how Sharp and Sony did their pixels, then they would be liable for 3x damages if their new display pixel switch design was construed by the lawyers as within some obscure claims in one of the thousands of patents in this area. If they had researched pixels properly, and arranged hundreds of licensing agreements with all the potential litigants, they would have given startup-killing business intelligence to competitors. Sarif’s pixels did not work properly (the paired pixel switch must be side-by-side, not collinear), and the company died. Millions of investment dollars, some innovative ideas, a great group of people, and a fun consulting contract, down the toilet. The Korean company that bought their remains for pennies on the dollar was not subject to the US legal system for the markets they pursued.

    The current system rewards ignorance, offshore manufacturing, and troublemaking lawyers. And because of that, real innovation is dying in the U.S. So far, we have been fortunate that the Chinese have not used their vast surplus of dollars to file millions of U.S. patents, bringing our economy to a standstill. Let us hope that Xi Jinping will be as friendly to the U.S. as Hu Jintao is, and that we won’t provoke them to use our own self-destructive legal system against us.

    Patents and the courtroom-dwelling parasites they feed will go away, sooner or later. The only question is whether we will ditch them to save our republic, or whether they will be abolished along with our entire government and legal system, by the occupying army of a government after our resources and remaining talents.

    • Brian

      While I do mostly operate on the copyright side of things (seems to be little opposition with copyright laws here), I am on a patent along with others at a former employer and have sought the possibility of patenting a few of my personal ideas. So I am going by what I was told or I read by patent attorneys. Admittedly this was several years ago and things seem to have deteriorated at alarming rate since then. I think you detail the point I was making in that the misuse and abuse of IP laws are a problem.

      I would however take issue with your characterization of the original patent laws. While it certainly was meant to encourage manufacturing it was also meant to promote innovation and more broadly liberty. Guilds are closed societies that limit inclusion, monopolize and have no incentive to innovate. Their motivation is to protect the status quo. Modern day unions are in fact guilds. It not surprising that that our Founding Fathers who sought to be free from European oppression would include in the constitution the provision for innovation and creativity;

      “Article I, Section 8.8–To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”

      Please note: (“To promote the progress of science and useful arts”). This was its ORIGINAL purpose.

      I also think it would be useful to include excerpts from the first US Patent Statute (Patent Act of 1790);

      “that he, she, or they, hath or have invented or discovered any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used” and

      “if they shall deem the invention or discovery sufficiently useful and important”

      Please note: (“or any improvement therein not before known or used”) which promotes not only NEW products but innovations on OLD ones.

      Please note: (“sufficiently useful and important”) An invention that does not work is neither useful nor important. So you had to prove that it worked.

      From what I understand is that patent laws can both be incremental, as you say, (Improvement Patent) and wholly new if its deemed “New and Nonobvious”.

      As I have previously stated “inadequately assigned blame” is at work here. I think many would agree something is amiss with current IP laws. But at the heart of the matter is a corrupt government seeking to extract money in as many ways possible, large corporations seeking not to compete in a free market but collude with government to eliminate their competition, parasitic attorneys and unscrupulous and opportunistic thieves all working to mold the IP laws to enrich themselves. You should also add Marxist who know this stops innovation and free enterprise. You then begin a bait-n-switch campaign that seeks to blame the idea of IP laws altogether instead of the corruption of IP laws by corrupt people.

      This same thing has been done to free market capitalism by progressives. Instead of flawed ideology, oppressive laws and regulations and bad policies taking the hit, blame it on the idea of a free market, which is not really so free anymore.

      The IP law bath water is dirty but we should not throw the baby out with it, just a return to proper IP laws would suffice.

  • http://davidmint.com David Mint

    The pertinant question in the IP realm is “Would IP be recognized in an anarchic environment?” While debatable, the answer would most likely boil down to property rights attaching to a form of tangible property. The real focus, then, would be the evolution of security mechanisms (code and encryption) designed to protect IP from infringement. The current IP regimen more resembles the granting of state sponsored monopolies than the state adequately protecting IP via patent filings.

    We explore the idea briefly in light of the Apple / Samsung ruling and would be honored if you read it here: http://davidmint.com/2012/09/26/apples-use-of-patent-law-indicative-of-an-inferior-product-offering/

    Thanks for opening up this lively conversation! The book looks like a provocative read.

    All the best,
    David

    • Brian

      Interesting site and I agree with many things you have there, but I must take issue with a few things:

      IP would not survive an anarchic environment but neither would any other law, as is inherent in the definition.

      There is no “property rights attaching to a form of tangible property”. IP laws only protect tangible property to begin with.

      The real problem we have here for opponents of IP laws is a flawed premise. For the sake of not digressing, I am not talking about those who are Marxist and believe everything must be communally shared (I have previously dealt with that ) OR the Envious who do not have the ability to create their own commercially viable intellectual property and resent the reality of someone else becoming wealthy off of royalties while they must grind away at the mercy of earned income OR the Entitled who feel they have a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor for free. Instead, I am referring to those who see an genuine injustice an abuse of the IP laws. That flaw is inadequately assigned blame. This is not exclusive to IP but has become an epidemic problem throughout many facets of society today.

      IP laws are neutral. Neither good nor bad and yet simultaneously good and bad.
      They are tools that when used properly promote good and when misused and abused promote bad. Just as a knife is useful to prepare and eat foods and many other useful things it can also be use to commit murder. So shall we then say that all knives should be outlawed. “Ridiculous!”, you say. Well they have been trying that with guns for years and now it looks like IP as well.

      So lets delve deep:
      Much of this debate has centered around patents but lets talk about copyrights for a moment. Lets suppose that back in the day after the Beatles just released the Sgt. Peppers album that the Rolling Stones released their version of the Sgt. Peppers album with the exact same songs, lyrics and music and it sold more because they sell them for far less. WHEN the Beatles sue no one would say this means the Beatles are admitting that the Stones are a better band and have a better product or they are trying to stop innovation. What people would say is that the Stones stole the Beatles product or property, as well as, the fruits of their labor (i.e.-income)

      Now back to patents:
      How this is supposed to work is say you have an inventor who gets a patent on his invention of a flat surface with 3 legs and calls it a stool. Inventor 2 can come and make a derivative work like adding another leg for more stability. He can get a patent on the the 4 legged stool that is different than the 3 legged stool. Inventor 3 can take that and add a back, call it a chair and get a patent on that. Inventor 4 can put curved rails on the bottom of the legs, call it a rocking chair and get a patent on that. Inventor 5 can put tracks and springs instead of curved rails, call it a gilder and get a patent on that. And so on… None of these inventors owe royalties to the other. You see how actually this encourages innovation NOT stifling it. If you do not innovate then you must pay a royalty if you want to produce and sell the 3 legged stool. However if I invent the 4 legged stool then I pay no royalties but in fact earn royalties to others who want to produce and sell my 4 legged stools. This is in direct contradiction to Mr. Morehouse and others that claim IP laws halt innovation.

      But there seems to be what appears to be a war on innovation. So what’s up? This too is not exclusive to IP.
      Socialism and Statism has crept into every aspect of government. This site has documented much of the regulations coming down that wants to put and end to progress and innovation. You also have Cronyism (We have to stop calling it Crony Capitalism because Capitalism has got nothing to do with it!) at best and full Fascism at worst. When we have business and individuals teaming up with government to eliminate their competition instead of simply providing a better product or service then we have misuse and abuse. This was first done with excessive regulations, fees & taxes and now is moving to IP laws.

      So back to our example:
      Inventor 1 is suing Inventors 2-5 because they all have 3 legs and a flat surface, nevermind that none of them are three legged stools but are all derivative works who each have their own patent. So then Inventor 2 will then sue Inventors 3-5 because they all have 4 legs and a flat surface, etc, etc. This clearly does stifle innovation.

      Therefore, the problem is not IP laws, but the MISUSE and ABUSE of IP laws!

  • Brian

    Mr. Morehouse seems to be confused. He is equating an idea with its implementation- two different things here. His whole argument is irrelevant and a straw man. He is arguing that ideas shouldn’t be protected with IP laws. Well guess what? They are not! He should actually try reading them. Ideas are not copyrightable only the execution of an idea or a tangible expression of that idea. You can get a provisional patent but it must be upgraded to a full patent proving that it works, usually with a prototype.
    Mr. Morehouse says, “Ideas, unlike physical goods, are not scarce.”
    Yes, but the implementation of ideas are!
    By the way Tim C. is correct. This is Marxism. To illustrate, just replace the word “intellectual’ with the word “personal”.
    His thesis is: Intellectual property belongs to everyone and that no one individual has the exclusive right to use their own intellectual property.
    Then becomes: Personal property belongs to everyone and that no one individual has the exclusive right to use their own personal property. Marxism!

    • Sarah

      Although I agree that the author of this article does not understand IP law, I must add to your post that it is possible for a patent actually to be granted on an idea without implementation. Patentability of an idea is up to the examiner and the courts but I know that it can be prevalent in the chemical and physical fields. However, an implementation of the idea does make the patent stronger and the examiners could demand an implementation.

      • Brian

        Yes, I would like to clarify a bit, although I hesitate to go here because there is a tendency to loose sight of the forrest for the sake of the trees.

        So, I did say “PROVING THAT IT WORKS, usually with a prototype”. If memory serves me, I believe that it used to be a requirement to have a prototype at the USPTO but that was relaxed because of the impossibility in some modern fields and the impracticality of warehousing all the inventions physically. However, you do have to supply a very detailed description of the invention and the problem it solves. You also have to supply schematic drawings that have everything labeled. You have to be detailed enough so that an expert in the field could make and use your invention. So it goes without saying that you better have already proven that it works. This means that you would have had possession of a working prototype, just not housed at the USPTO.

        The real point here is ABSTRACT IDEAS are not copyrightable or patentable, only specific CONCRETE EXPRESSIONS of those ideas. This makes them tangible things (i.e.-property).

  • Peter

    Once again, the founders prove themselves smarter than anyone who came after. You want to take away any incentive to innovate – just stop protecting IP rights. Mediocrity and stagnation will abound.

    • Franklin

      Right, because if there’s no government enforced IP, nobody would ever create a Dell computer, a John Deere tractor, an Eljer toilet, or Moby-Dick; and we would die a slow and miserable death, never knowing such things as the internet, grain harvests, odor free bathrooms, and epic storytelling.

  • Sarah

    The use of the word childish and other derogatory terms did not evoke an emotional response. It is true that many of the terms used within this article were used to complain and whine about a system the author does not fully comprehend. The article itself it not very well written and is extremely misleading. If you think that it is justifiable to use derogatory language in an adult conversation then we clearly do not have the same ideas of standards of which an adult conversation consists. The use of the term ignorant is based on it’s dictionary definition; “lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular”. This something in particular is intellectual property law and the term is descriptive of the authors comprehension of intellectual property law. This was not meant in an insulting or derogatory way but is merely a truthful statement about this specific article only. I appreciate the chance to address and clarify that statement.
    If you believe that you should be able to just copy the invention of another individual and profit from that investment, this is stealing and I would strongly question your moral standards based on this statement. However, if you are talking about personal use, technically, no company will prosecute you if you build an identical mousetrap and use it in your house. A company will only enforce it’s patent rights when a competitor is making the companies invention and profiting from the sales of the invention. There is no way that the patent holder would ever know that you are making their mousetrap and using it in their house nor would they care to enforce their patent on you for that.
    I am concerned about your statement that:
    [mousetrap builder #1 was granted a patent] because mousetrap builder #1 filled out paperwork faster than builder #2.
    This is inaccurate because the builder #1 is the only inventor in your scenario. Builder #2 simply copied the inventor. Builder #2 could not have filed for a patent before builder #1 because builder #2 did not inventively build the mousetrap.
    You seem to believe that you are more educated in law than the framers of the constitution and that you feel qualified to critique the content of the constitution. What are your qualifications for such an outrageous statement?

    • Franklin

      “…you feel qualified to critique the content of the constitution. What are your qualifications for such an outrageous statement?”

      I have the ability to reason.

  • Sarah

    The content of this article clearly shows that the author has an incorrect understanding of intellectual property law.
    A patent does not give you the right to make or sell the invention, it gives the right to exclude others from making or selling the same invention for 20 years from the filing date of the application. When an individual or entity invests time and money and has an inventive discovery with subsequent commercialization, the patent allows the inventor to attempt to stop a competitor from simply copying the invention and profiting from the original inventor’s intellectual property. It is not just multi-billion dollar corporations that are investing in intellectual property. Small start-up companies, academic institutions, and individuals also file patents.
    A thought to consider is that although the patent gives the inventor rights to enforce their property rights of what they claim to be their invention in the patent, competitors can build upon the invention with an improvement and file a patent of their own. For example if a scientific assay method is patented, and a competing company looks at the full disclosure of the method and figures out a way to do the method in a more useful way, (like changing steps to be quicker, using less harsh chemicals that do not damage proteins, antibodies etc, substituting elements that are easier to obtain or use, increasing efficiency of a process, and so on), this competitor can get a a patent for that improved method.
    Although IP can be used in a negative way, that is true for all systems especially in government. Just because some people abuse a system doesn’t mean all the basis is wrong or immoral. It just means that adjustments and regulations are needed to “weed-out” abusers.
    There are many examples of laws that have been made attempting to weed-out abusers of the IP system and this effort is continuous. For example, the recent elimination of the Qui Tam provision has drastically improved some unnecessary immoral litigation over false patent marking.
    I would like to add that the provision for intellectual property is included in the constitution. I think this speaks for itself as to the importance of intellectual property to the economic basis of our country.
    My last thought is that the author is insulting individuals who work in the IP field and individuals who have or will obtain IP protection for their invention by using the words “childish” and other derogatory language. This type of attitude and language is inappropriate and does not contribute to a healthy adult discussion on the value of intellectual property economically and morally.
    I would advise the author not to write articles about topics that they are clearly ignorant about in the future so as to avoid misleading someone who is unfamiliar with the concept or field.

    • Franklin

      While you are correct that the author’s provocative use of “childish” was unfortunate and predictably caused emotional reaction (justifiably so), you then engage in similar disparagement, accusing Isaac of being ignorant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      Employing the citations in the U.S. constitution is not an argument. The framers were as mistaken as you are.

      An inventor has a right to the mousetrap he built, not to mine. Whether or not I used the same wooden dimensions, the same kind of pinewood, the same kind of hammer, and the same triggering design is not the business of any bureaucracy or any other flawed human being to provide a monopoly in commercial exchange — and all because mousetrap builder #1 filled out paperwork faster than builder #2. If you don’t want me to copy your design, then don’t build one, or stay in your garage and keep all the doors closed.

      “Just because some people abuse a system…. it just means that adjustments and regulations are needed to “weed-out” abusers.”

      There is no system to abuse. There are human beings engaged in human action (apologies to Mises). Your position (just tweak a few more regulations) is that which fostered an oligarchy of mini Caesars, deciding who wins and loses, not to mention the Leviathan that steals my money so it can justify its existence and stifle progress.

      Although I think Kinsella’s book, cited here, is too brief and not comprehensive enough in providing examples, it does provide the rigorous foundation as to why IP fails as property and falls apart under economic scrutiny..
      That is the fundamental argument, and worth your read, time and focus.

  • Lex

    IP slows down innovation therefore the development of civilization and the process of efficiency development in resource allocation.

    BTW you know what I’d print for the first time with a 3D printer? Another 3D printer. I just doubled my production, how cool is that :) But hey I guess my kid needs to pay royalties to me and his mother for his DNA. Especially if Monsanto created us in a tube. Oh wait we are not there…. yet.

  • https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/ PeaceRequiresAnarchy

    Well these comments are a surprise (I didn’t expect to see such a high proportion of pro-IP people on this website).

    First of all, the article wasn’t meant to be a rigorous argument against IP. (If you want that, Google and read Stephan Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property.”) It was only meant to provide some examples of situations in which IP laws could potentially be applied so that we could see if such laws aligned with our moral intuitions or not.

    And I thought it did a great job at this. Don’t we all at least intuitively believe that it is wrong for the child to violently destroy his sister’s tower merely because she copied his original design?

    This intuition is different than many peoples’ intuition that it is wrong for people to print out copies of an author’s book without that author’s permission (for example).

    Yet both cases are examples of people re-arranging their own property using knowledge they got by observing what someone else has done. Both are examples of people copying others without their permission. Yet in one situation many people’s moral intuition is that the anti-copying law is just, whereas in the other situation it isn’t.

    There are many people who believe that copyright and patent laws are just due to their moral intuitions alone. So why is this article “very disappointing” for pointing out to people that their moral intuitions are actually against IP in certain other situations? Isn’t pointing this out a good thing because it motivates people to actually look into learning more rigorous arguments on the issue?

    • Sibearian

      Actually, I rather get the impression that the purpose of the article was to demean IP proponents and aggrandize the author’s self. Essentially, he was putting himself forward as the adult and IP proponents as children.

      Your arguments are unfortunately not very rigorous. I’ve heard of appealing to authority, but to intuition? Besides, don’t “most people” nowadays believe in redistribution of property? To them, strict property rights are counter-intuitive.

      • Franklin

        Or it was meant to provoke readers into reading Kinsella’s volume.
        I’ve thought about this article today at length (and the responses of the opposition), and I wonder if Isaac would believe it was worthy of a “do-over”. I would.
        Nevertheless, I am curious as to your assessment and critiques of Kinsella’s book, as this is the oft-referenced starter kit in constructing the economically libertarian argument. I’ve not read Boldrin and Levine’s work, cited by “Peace…” But I shall.
        Cheers.

  • Pingback: Intellectual Property Is Childish | | House PricesHouse Prices

  • JOJO

    Thanks for the article text- I am putting it in a book I am selling. Cheers!

    • https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/ PeaceRequiresAnarchy

      Go for it. I am sure that Isaac Morehouse would agree that you have every right to do so and perhaps would feel honored that you found his article quality enough to be worth including in your book.

  • MuchoGusto

    Not a single serious argument in this piece nor does it address any of the real arguments of IP proponents. Another reason why nobody takes libertarians seriously.

  • KeepersTweed

    > “why should property rights only be applied to scarce things?”

    We can understand the malformation of the term and concept of ‘intellectual property’ by understanding normal property more clearly.

    True property does not really impose restrictions on people’s use of material objects: it *apportions* the restrictions that are already there inherent in those objects.

    The value of property rules is not restriction, but *coordination*. They cannot be understood simply from how they instruct/restrict the individual: the value arises from how they fit with material and how they work as a system. Property is a *collective* rule (a rule for all) for managing an actual *limitation*.

    Applying property to non-scarce things is basically (a priori) counterproductive because it creates a restriction that does not otherwise exist — it is a net subtraction of what we can do in/with the world. Where true property allows us to get more from our use of material objects, ‘intellectual property’ — conceived as a pure principle, not pragmatically — forces us to get less.

    • Sibearian

      “it is a net subtraction of what we can do in/with the world”

      So is Billy’s property right in his toy, no? After all, even when he is not playing with it, it’s still his. I assume you would not say that his rights to it end when he isn’t using it anymore. Therefore, Sally can’t just take it. The property right is a “…net subtraction of what [she] can do” as you say. All property rights are, in fact.

      I understand property as having two components: raw unowned materials in “nature” and human labor. So why does this not apply to ideas? Are you saying that ideas are not natural somehow?

      • Franklin

        Sally can’t take the pieces but she can copy the model. And then, in turn, her construction is her own property.
        If she tells everyone that the formation was her own idea, she is lying and committing fraud.
        Ironically, for the death-of-innovation-phobes, there would be a plethora of market innovations, nightwatchmen, which guard against the latter — in the private sector.

        I too am surprised at the level of objections and can only surmise that many (not all) proponents of IP have grandiose ambitions of imitating George Lucas’ outrageous, money-printing machine — a protection racket that ensures I can’t paint and sell a picture of Darth Vader unless I ask Lucasfilm if they don’t mind, not to mention the cut they demand, for nothing. It’s all just corporatist welfare and actually stifles innovation, as another commenter mentioned. I say this without malice nor sarcasm, but I do believe that many fine artists and writers, who are also posters, believe they shall be cheated of their accomplishments and will have no means to earn a living without selling their souls to Bertelsmann. It’s an erroneous fear and objection.

        Finally, relative to innovation concerns, such as the NFL, big pharma, R&D ventures, etc., I remind that arguing rights in terms of utilitarianism leads only to tyranny.

  • Chad

    Well these comments aren’t helpful so far (except Sibearian’s final question, to which I’d be interested in hearing Isaac’s response).

    More to the point, it seems like there’s an argument of innovation’s motivation here. Namely, that it’s inherent. People WILL innovate, even when they can’t reap rewards for it. Maybe I’m wrong there, but I still wonder about the specific examples.

    For instance, in the NFL, even if coaches couldn’t copy plays, they COULD respond to them. As such, an NFL coach has to innovate even if no one is copying him, because using the same play for too long means everyone knows what he’ll do.

    I guess my question would be, does that actually translate to the broader marketplace? What are all the motivations for innovation, and how big a part of that is expected return on investment?

    Second, how much does time frame come into play. Many large companies that do a lot of R&D are playing the long-game, while an NFL coach really only cares about the season in front of him. His team will be different next year, so why try to be protective of your playbook past that length of time anyway?

  • Sibearian

    Very disappointing article. I’m interested in serious arguments against IP, not this. You insult IP proponents from the get-go by calling them childish. Thereby you invite counter-insults like the one from Tim C. calling you a Marxist.
    You example of a parent who doesn’t recognize IP falls flat on its face when you consider that most parents are anti-property within their families. Example: parent gives Billy a toy – a clear transfer of property rights. Sally, his sister, wants to play with it too, without Billy’s OK. What do most parents do? Disregard the property right and insist that Billy “share”.
    Instead of wasting all that space and time pontificating that IP is “childish” you should have tried to convince us that it’s not really property. The question is not “is it adult?” Rather it is “why should property rights only be applied to scarce things?”

    • https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/ PeaceRequiresAnarchy

      “I’m interested in serious arguments against IP, not this.”

      Read Stephan Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property” ( http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf ).

      Michele Boldrin’s and David K. Levine’s “Against Intellectual Monopoly” ( http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm ) may also be of interest. It mostly deals with economic arguments against IP laws and how copyright and patent actually harm innovation. “[I]ntellectual property is in fact intellectual monopoly and hinders rather than helps innovation and creation.”

  • Michael Mauldin

    So you’d have no problem with me reposting this article without your name on it, because it would be childish of you to refuse to allow me to copy your words?

    • https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/ PeaceRequiresAnarchy

      So you’d have no problem with me reposting this article without your name on it, because it would be childish of you to refuse to allow me to copy your words?

      I highly doubt that he would have a problem with it, but even if he did I am sure that he would acknowledge that you have the *right* to re-post it without his name on it.

      Anyway, it appears that you don’t understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright. People have the legal right to make copies of books that are in the public domain (e.g. The Aeneid), yet you would still be plagiarizing it if you pretended like you had written it. On the other hand, if you produce a copy of a copyrighted book without the copyright-holders permission then the state considers you guilty even if you provided full attribution to the author and source of the book.

      And yes, it would be childish of him to resort to violence to get you to not use your own property and the knowledge you have of his article to produce a copy of his article, especially since such a use of violence would be unjust.

  • Tim C.

    A childish and impotent argument for a childish and impotent position. Johnny knocked down Sally’s logos so IP Marxism is OK.

    • Kay

      Tim C., you hit the nail on the head! This website should be embarrassed to publish such drivel.