Kodak and Sony End Patent Fight.
NEW YORK – Eastman Kodak Co. on Wednesday said it signed a licensing pact with Sony Corp. that settles a dispute over digital camera and imaging technology patents, and grants each company access to the other’s patents.
Wow–they cross-licensed each others’ patents to each others, after millions spent acquiring the patents and suing each other! What a boon for the economy! (Where “economy” means “lawyers,” of course.)
{ 5 comments }
Anarcho-communists say the same thing about millions of dollars that we spend in “unproductive” tort and breach-of contracts lawsuits… and not to mention how much is spent on physical protection of private property. Libertarian-Communists (as they call themselves) think: if we could abolish private property, all that money would go to “more productive” uses.
There is something unseen in such fallacious notion. If it wasn’t for private property rights and someone could take our property for free (zero) supply would naturally be driven down by the expectation of this price – and production would rely on goodwill rather than profit motivation.
Similar thing goes for so-called intellectual property. Sure – a lot of money is spent on patent disputes (by the way, this money is not burned… it is still in our economy where it can be lent to more productive uses) – but if it wasn’t for these conditions of use of someone else’s private property, anyone could be free to assume ownership over these goods, replicate them at will (increasing supply) – driving down their prices, reducing the profit incentive for future production. Attempts to abolish private property rights cannot be immune from the law of supply that punishes any kind of communist measure, including the one aimed at abolishing physical property that is allowed only for some personal uses (copyrights).
Rothbard’s criticism of current patents and defense of the copyright still makes the most sense.
Normally, I don’t agree with Sasha_Radeta’s reasoning, but here, he puts it very well. I would have been more tritely dismissive though, so here’s what I would have said if he/she hadn’t posted that:
“Yeah, and look at all this money litigating disputes over property rights! Wouldn’t we save a lot of resources if we just didn’t *have* property rights? Think about it.”
Then, Stephan would have called me names, the obscene ones via email. Others would pile on with poor defenses of Stephan’s post, and I’d rip them apart, and then be accused of defending the patents when really I was just pointing out the poor arguments Stephan originally presented, etc.
Wouldn’t these cross-licensing agreements raise some eyebrows with them ‘trustbusting’ feds? It’s bad that companies get a monopoly advantage in the first place, but by cross-licensing, this monopoly advantage gets even worse.
Person –
there’s big money in patent disputes for the same reason here’s big money in warfare.
It’s all about gaining ability to steal other peoples’ property and ability to boss others around for fun and profit.
Behind every patent there’s a government thug with a gun. Never ever forget about it.
kurtbattais,
If you are born smart and good-looking, that is a huge advantage (you might have a monopoly, in a sense, over other men). But if you marry someone like that – your advantage becomes even higher.
What am I trying to say….? It’s not bad at all if someone invents something great for the human race – and then refuses to sell ownership title over the items he reproduces (he only allow customers to use these products in certain way, that they agree upon in a market exchange). It is not bad if they unite with someone else who had an independent discovery like his… More power to them – indeed. They did not violate anyone’s private property rights, and if it wasn’t for the state – private markets would protect their ownership rights to restrict other people’s use of their property.
—–
Averros,
There is big money in protection of private property rights. I mean, ask lawyers and government thugs with guns who now protect these rights. Is that a valid argument to abolish private property? Of course not! Abolish the state, rather, and leave property rights (from which copyright is derived) alone.
Comments on this entry are closed.