The Growing Anti-IP Movement
It's really something how much growing opposition there seems to be to intellectual property, particularly patent and copyright. I suspect one thing that is happening is as technology ever-more-rapidly changes and becomes part of our world, and with the digitization of information and media, and the Internet, the costs and injustices that have been caused all along by patent and copyright are becoming more visible and perhaps more extensive. So there is a rising chorus of people--especially young people--who just say, "That's just BS!" Think about it: pretty frequently there is some commentary about some IP abuse or horror story; but you almost never hear any defense of IP, or any example of its supposed success stories. The only advocates of IP seem to be Disney's lawyers.
Case in point to the changing IP climate--I just received, out of the blue, a call from Jesse Brown, the host of the Canadian CBC (their version of NPR) radio program "The Contrarians" -- "a radio show about unpopular ideas that just might be right. Each week, host Jesse Brown invites listeners to step outside of their intellectual comfort zones and try an unorthodox opinion on for size. You may be surprised by what starts making sense."
He was aware of my anti-IP views (no doubt due to the growing prominence of Mises.org) and that I'm a patent lawyer, and interviewed me for about 20 minutes, furiously taking notes. I think they are considering doing a show on this. What I found striking was how intelligent his questions were, and that he was perfectly okay with my focus being based on a principled, libertarian, property rights view--not the standard wealth-maximization/utilitarian type argument. Anyway, stay tuned!
Comments (111)
Think about it: pretty frequently there is some commentary about some IP abuse or horror story; but you almost never hear any defense of IP, or any example of its supposed success stories.
I'm speechless. I can't believe you actually just said that. "almost no IP success stories?" Okay, unless you ignore the life-saving (and other-stuff-saving) medicines, hit movies, famous novel series (Harry Potter), video games...Please read further before making a ridiculous response.
I can accept that these events would not justify IP. I can accept that they are irrelevant. I could accept that they might have happened sooner, or somehow been better without IP. I cannot accept the blanket assertion that there are "almost no IP success stories". To claim that would be to reveal you don't understand the concept of a pessimistic bias, i.e., not noticing when things go well. I mean, seriously, do you ever think you're going to see a story on Slashdot that says "Lots of people paid their own movie to see a big-budget movie this weekend and believed themselves to be better off as a result of seeing it, obviously proving why we need copyright." ?
And what's this "no defenders of IP"? Okay, unless you count all the voters who elect people who keep these laws in place. And for those of you who habitually misread my posts: yes, I know those people may be *wrong*. I know their beliefs may be misguided. I know their support of IP is no proof of the validity of IP, but claiming IP has "no defenders"? No defenders of *specific abuses*, sure, but there are plenty of defenders of the concept of it.
And if you're going to take a "screw-the-consequences" approach, great, but then you forfeit any argumentative benefit you would get from citing the resulting absurdities. Any practical absurdity simply doesn't matter once you reject consequentialist concerns.
Published: July 13, 2006 10:48 AM
Person: "I'm speechless."
Not quite apparently.
What I mean is when you read any article or report, it's almost always about some disaster. No one is touting its purported successes. Just the other day an IP blog posted about an alleged "patent success story". Note that the author, patent attorney Dennis Crouch, after I pointed out he had not at all demonstrated it was really a success story, basically withdrew his claim: "Stephan -- Great comment. Certainly, my little anecdote here does not prove anything and there are dozens of questions that must be analyzed before we would could determine whether the patent grant on simvastatin was an overall public good".
My point here is to show the tide of anti-IP sentiment is growing, and almost unopposed except by lawyers in the pay of large companies with a dog in the fight.
Find me some.
That may be one reason for it, but I am talking about the clamor. It's not like there's even a healthy debate. Almost everyone who talks about IP seems to be complaining about it. More so than in the past.
Do you disagree, Mr. Person?
You would think that those who favor IP, when they see an avalanche of criticism of IP, would at least respond to the bad examples by providing good ones. All they do is cast off with a wave of the hand a few things that are supposed to be "obvious" success stories, as Crouch did above (and then had to retract), and as you do above re movies, without any proof that it's a success (or what your criteria for success is) other than your bare assertion that you like the end result. WHat about the costs? Cry for me, Argentina!!
Where are all the pro-IP editorials, columns? Where are the articles saying that the IP complainers are wrong, or just a bunch of whiners? My point is that there is a growing anti-IP sentiment. Do you disagree, P-dog?
Sorry, could you repeat the question?
Published: July 13, 2006 11:00 AM
My point here is to show the tide of anti-IP sentiment is growing, and almost unopposed except by lawyers in the pay of large companies with a dog in the fight.
And almost all voters.
That may be one reason for it, but I am talking about the clamor. It's not like there's even a healthy debate. Almost everyone who talks about IP seems to be complaining about it. More so than in the past.
Do you disagree, Mr. Person?
Yeah, I do. I hear a lot of people telling me about a great movie they saw. Movies are IP. So, when someone tells me about a great movie, he's talking about IP. Rarely do they say anything against IP there. You're looking at this too narrowly. There is immense support for IP rights -- it's just taken is a baseline, so very rarely is a supporter going to take the time to address some very unlikely change (elimination of IP).
You would think that those who favor IP, when they see an avalanche of criticism of IP, would at least respond to the bad examples by providing good ones.
No, they recognize that the "good ones" is the totality of all for-profit intellectual works. We do not have time to list them all. The typical response, in my experience in numerous discussions, to any abuse is "Let's stop this specific abuse." Rarely does any moderate say, "Hm, this is a good argument against IP as such."
Where are all the pro-IP editorials, columns? Where are the articles saying that the IP complainers are wrong, or just a bunch of whiners? My point is that there is a growing anti-IP sentiment. Do you disagree, P-dog?
There is growing anti-IP-abuse sentiment, not anti-IP sentiment. The debate is always framed in terms of "should we extend, or keep copyright duration?" "does fair use extend to this use, or not?"
me:And if you're going to take a "screw-the-consequences" approach, great, but then you forfeit any argumentative benefit you would get from citing the resulting absurdities. Any practical absurdity simply doesn't matter once you reject consequentialist concerns.
you:Sorry, could you repeat the question?
No question, just a reminder that if you're going to ignore arguments about the good consequences of IP because you're "not utilitarian", you cannot consistently then invoke arguments about the bad consequences of IP.
Published: July 13, 2006 11:35 AM
Person:
Um, yeah, but see my interaction w/ Mr. Crouch on this. See, they are not making a coherent case that it's a success, b/c they are not defining the criteria or even attempting to tout up the costs. See?
Nor time to try to tout up the costs, apparently, despite the justification being its overall wealth-generation. Strange.
Oh, I disagree. It is primarily anti-IP-abuse but there is growing anti-IP sentiment too. Trust me.
Thanks for the reminder. Done your duty now of hounding me, as you promised you would do in private email to me? Don't you have anyone else to hound?
Published: July 13, 2006 12:08 PM
I haven't made up mymind on IP yet. It seems it would be robbery if somone made a new technolegy and every one else just made copies of the technology they couldn't sell any of their copies for a profit because they already spent the capital to invent the technology. Same goes for technolegy. But it doesn't sit right with me for somone to own an idea though, especially if it was technology because it seems somone else might of invented it soon enough. Also haveing limits on the lenght of the patent are arbitrary But for movies books songs I say IP is a good thing though... but why is it different for technology? Very confusing.
Published: July 13, 2006 1:11 PM
You should be banned from posting on Mises.org for quoting the CBC. Either you don't know what they're about, or you assume that the readership here doesn't.
Published: July 13, 2006 2:20 PM
Reading economic history, several people credit the creation of laws protecting IP with setting the stage for the industrial revolution.
A lot of companies don't patent new inventions because they think they can keep their secrets better than the patent laws, which require you give away most of your secrets in order to get the right to sue someone of they steel them.
Protecting the creators of books, music and film seems logical, though. It seems like theft for someone else to use my ideas to make money, sort of like squatting.
Published: July 13, 2006 3:59 PM
Yes, the CBC is a state-run radio/television network. As Mr. Kinsella pointed out, we'll have to "stay tuned" to find out whether the show's producers do justice or a hatchet-job to anti-IP arguments.
Sometimes change does start from within. Perhaps "The Contrarians" will do a show soon that advises Canada's government to offer the CBC for sale to the private sector. Just imagine "Coach's Corner" with so much advertising in the background that something finally drowns out Grapes' garish wardrobe (for those who don't follow: yes that is indeed a hockey-related reference).
Published: July 13, 2006 4:00 PM
Roger M,
Who, exactly, credits the Industrial Revolution with IP? Have you visited Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Property" site (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm)? They offer great examples of 19th century inventions, which lacked IP protection, that gave a major boost to industrialization, such as the cotton gin. The Watt Steam Engine is another great example.
Simply put, intellectual property rights are entirely illogical. The entire basis for property rights is that it is a system to properly allocate scarce goods. If a good is not scarce, like an idea, how is it property???
Published: July 13, 2006 4:36 PM
Personally, I'm in agreement with Rothbard: Patents are morally wrong, but copyrights are morally right. Even the defenders of patents admit that they are government-granted monopolies. The defenders of patents always rely on utilitarian arguments, rather than appealing to property rights.
But copyrights are different, because they can be viewed as property rights. If I write a book, sell that book to someone, and that person then copies my book and uses those copies as if he were the creator (e.g. sells the copies for a nice profit), I feel there is something morally wrong with his actions. Of course, I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, and thus, I don't think anyone should be convicted of copyright infringing unless we know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they copied anothers' work, and the apparent copying is not simply coincidental.
So, I'm happy to see patents attacked, but I can't support the abolishment of copyrights, because I see copyrights as legitimate property rights.
Published: July 13, 2006 4:54 PM
Blah: "Personally, I'm in agreement with Rothbard: Patents are morally wrong, but copyrights are morally right. Even the defenders of patents admit that they are government-granted monopolies. The defenders of patents always rely on utilitarian arguments, rather than appealing to property rights."
You do realize that patents cover inventions (new devices, useful methods) and copyright covers the expression of original works (novels, poems). Yet Rothbard spoke of copyright as applying to an invention or machine.
Rothbard (p. 123):
So was he defending patent, or copyright? He uses the word copyright, while talking about inventions, which are what patents are for. Do you know? He seems to base his bizarre "copyright in inventions" idea on "common law" copyright--but that was just a doctrine that "gave the author the right of first publication of the work and some protection against tortious misappropriation of the work". Do you think, perhaps, he was confused? Are you confused? What are you talking about?
"But copyrights are different, because they can be viewed as property rights. If I write a book, sell that book to someone, and that person then copies my book and uses those copies as if he were the creator (e.g. sells the copies for a nice profit), I feel there is something morally wrong with his actions."
Well, I "feel" there is not. Now what do we do?
Published: July 13, 2006 5:03 PM
Person,
Your consequentialist concerns are trivial, and must remain trivial until you, or someone else can assert with any kind of accuracy whatsoever that they are true, or at least factual. This is not to say that the consequences themselves are trivial, as people dying from lack of medicine is serious, but your concerns themselves are trivial.
Can you, with any conviction whatsoever, assert that the human race will die without IP? What about 3/4s? 2/3s? 1/2? Any fraction at all? If you cannot assert these things with any accuracy, then your concerns are trivial and should be abandoned. I know I can't be the only one tired of seeing 'consequentalist this, and medicine for sick people that' every time there's an IP blog posting. At least back it up with some paper, or study, or something which purports to show that without IP many humans will perish. It would be much better than e.g. "Without IP there would be little incentive to create computer applications (hypothetical opinion), and that would be bad (hypothetical opinion). Therefore we need some form of IP. QED."
Published: July 13, 2006 5:47 PM
Stephan,
Thanks for the quick response.
So was he defending patent, or copyright? He uses the word copyright, while talking about inventions, which are what patents are for. Do you know? Do you think he was confused? Are you confused? What are you talking about?
Once again, Rothbard proves that he is smarter than I...he defends copyright by simply appealing to contract law. I didn't even think about it that way.
Yes, I agree with Rothbard. An invention can be copyrighted in the manner he describes just as easily as a book can. I don't think he's confused, I think he just rejects the false dichotomy presented by our current legal system (i.e. patents cover inventions and copyright covers the expression of original works). The question of what can be copyrighted is a matter of whether a contract is legally enforceable or not. The question of what exactly stamping the word "copyright" on an invention specifically means is for the courts to decide. An author can always offer their own contract if they don't like the contract that the word "copyright" is commonly interpreted to imply.
Well, I "feel" there is not. Now what do we do?
I agree that Rothbard's defense is far better than my own, but ultimately, doesn't basic morality come from our strongest feelings? If I state that murder is wrong, and you disagree, what can I say to convince you? If we don't have some common ground (e.g. share the feeling that a violation of property rights is morally wrong), how can there be any further reasoning?
Published: July 13, 2006 5:51 PM
Blah,
"Once again, Rothbard proves that he is smarter than I...he defends copyright by simply appealing to contract law. I didn't even think about it that way."
No, he defends patent with contract law, while calling it copyright.
"Yes, I agree with Rothbard. An invention can be copyrighted in the manner he describes just as easily as a book can. I don't think he's confused, I think he just rejects the false dichotomy presented by our current legal system (i.e. patents cover inventions and copyright covers the expression of original works)."
The are totally different things. What do they have in common? Copyrights cover works of authorship that are *original*--they cover the way ideas are expressed, not the idea itself. Patents cover *inventions* that are practical, useful, new, and non-obvious. What are you saying is the common thread between these disparate notions?
"The question of what can be copyrighted is a matter of whether a contract is legally enforceable or not. The question of what exactly stamping the word "copyright" on an invention specifically means is for the courts to decide. An author can always offer their own contract if they don't like the contract that the word "copyright" is commonly interpreted to imply."
Do you realize that courts usually say contracts bind only the parties to the agreement. So how do you expect a contract between A and B to be used by A to sue C? For example let's say I know the general idea of the Star Wars movies, and want to write a novel, "The further adventures of Han Solo," with my own plot. What possible contract theory can George Lucas use to sue me? Or are you saying you would not let "derivative rights" be part of copyright law? If so, you are basically denuding it (fine by me).
"If I state that murder is wrong, and you disagree, what can I say to convince you?"
Nothing, you shoot me.
" If we don't have some common ground (e.g. share the feeling that a violation of property rights is morally wrong), how can there be any further reasoning?"
There can't. Still, assertions don't cut it as between reasoning people. What common standard are you appealing to?
Published: July 13, 2006 6:07 PM
Blah,
Let’s modify your question slightly.
“If I state that copyright is valid, and you disagree, what can I say to convince you? If we don't have some common ground (e.g. share the feeling that a violation of property rights is morally wrong), how can there be any further reasoning?�
Now, let’s presume both people in the argument believe in peaceful conflict free cooperation, and respect for private property rights etc. (Actually, they both actually demonstrate a preference for peace by engaging in argumentation, rather than just killing each other). In this case, the answer to your question is this: your argument requires justification. The justification doesn’t necessarily need to be contrary to your feeling, but still it must be a justification which is to say, it must be consistent with rules of peaceful interaction.
Peaceful people justify private property on the basis that it is the only basis for rules by which men can live where conflict avoidance over scarce PHYSICAL resources can be avoided. That is, the institution of private property arises out of the recognition that it is only physical resources which are scarce, and therefore it is only these scarce resources which can possibly result in conflict between two or more different individuals who might contend for the exclusive right to control this same scarce resource. This also explains why we do not have or need property in air, or sunlight, for instance. These things have value to us, but they are not scarce and so we inherently do not sense a need to apply private property to them.
Secondly, a characteristic of private property is that we recognize that the first use, first own concept is necessary to make the resolution of the question of who has the best claim to ownership of property clearest. The first person to perform the action of appropriating and using a previously unowned resource is the clear objective owner. The link between the resource and the owners is objective and clear: he’s used and embordered the resource first. Along with this homesteading, or first to appropriate concept, it follows that title to property can be transferred by mutual voluntary agreement from one to another property owner.
These are the rules of private property. They work if applied to everyone universally; that is, they allow for peaceful cooperation and conflict avoidance.
One implication of this is that late-comers are bared from claiming property ownership by declaration; they must also appropriate previously unowned resources, or contractually and non-coercively obtain title to property. There is no justification to the ownership by declaration concept because multiple late-comers could then make multiple declarations of ownership and this would necessarily result again in conflict, which we as peaceful individuals cannot justify.
IP has the implication of doing exactly this. By coming up with an idea and making it public, IP admits that one can exercise by decree, as a late-comer, what previous property owners can and cannot do with their rightfully owned property. This in effect suggests the late-comer can claim at least partial ownership, by decree, of another person’s property. How: by saying what he can and cannot do with his computer, or CD, or ink and paper and printing press. This situation cannot be justified by any advocate of peace. And, by the way, making an argument to advocate anything represents a demonstrated preference for peace, over aggression. Therefore one cannot, without contradiction, advocate IP laws at all.
Published: July 13, 2006 7:02 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again (and you may all quote me without crediting me):
The idea that any human being should be allowed to own and thus be able to exclude others from patterns of sound, light, language, or action is patently absurd most of all because it bestows at least partial ownership of everyone else in the world to the holder of the IP rights.
How can I own my own body if you can tell me what words I may not speak, what texts I may not write, etc. In effect, you know own me in part because the right to exclude is one of the rights in the property rights bundle. Therefore, everyone who is in favor of IP is in favor of slavery and statism and is the enemy of liberty.
Published: July 13, 2006 7:58 PM
Thanks all for the replies.
What are you saying is the common thread between these disparate notions?
What I'm saying (and I think Rothbard as well, although I could be wrong) is that there is no property rights on ideas, per se. However, if I manifest my idea as a good (e.g. a mousetrap), then I can stop my idea from being copied by making the acceptance of a copyright-like contract a condition of property transfer.
Now, the immediate problem is, as you pointed out, if A and B agree to this contract, that's fine. But what if C does not? How can I stop C from copying my idea?
To illustrate the principle I would use, suppose that B steals a certain amount of money from A. One week later, B dies, but his will specifies that the money go to his son, C. If A finds out about this, should a court not be able to order C to allow A to reclaim his money, even if C was not aware of the theft? And if C was aware of the theft, couldn't C be punished for aiding B in the crime by failing to even notify the rightful owner of where his money is?
Assuming that you agree with the above, then consider the following: A agrees to sell a book he wrote to B, but only after B agrees to a contract that says B can't make derived works. The contract states that B can not show the book to anyone unless they agree to the contract as well.
B then shows the book to C. If C accepts the contract, then there is no breach of contract. But what if C doesn't accept the contract? C could make a derived work, since he never agreed to the contract.
But, just as an innocent person must return stolen loot if reasonably possible, shouldn't a court be able to order an innocent person to stop perpetuating the injuries to A that resulted from B's crime? After all, A could correctly argue that C would never have been able to make the derived work if B had never violated the contract. What is C's defense? That it is his God-given right to profit from the crimes of others at the expense of the victim?
Hasn't A been injured? After all, what does it mean to own property if not to control it? If A gives a book to B on the condition that B not use the book in a certain way, then if B violates the contract, B has taken away control from A, and thus violated A's property right. If C knowingly helps B perpetuate the very events that A wished to stop with his property right, is C not a criminal?
Well, I know you'll still disagree, but that's the best I can do at making my case...
Published: July 13, 2006 9:37 PM
I can accept that these events would not justify IP. I can accept that they are irrelevant. I could accept that they might have happened sooner, or somehow been better without IP. I cannot accept the blanket assertion that there are "almost no IP success stories".
I don't get it. On the one hand you say that you accept (I understand that you don't really, you just mean you accept it for the sake of argument; anyway) that IP may be irrelevant or even harmful to the success of Harry Potter, and in the next breath you say Harry Potter is an example that shows why you don't accept the proposition that there are "almost no IP success stories". The only sense I can make of it is if you simply mean "is a success while IP exists" (with no causation in sight) - "Harry Potter is a success; IP exists; therefore Harry Potter is an IP success story" - "Tiger Woods is a success; IP exists; therefore Tiger Woods is an IP success story" - etc.
Published: July 13, 2006 10:57 PM
Blah,
“… there is no property rights on ideas,…�
Check. Keep that thought as we proceed through your analysis.
“However, if I manifest my idea as a good (e.g. a mousetrap), then I can stop my idea from being copied by making the acceptance of a copyright-like contract a condition of property transfer.�
You can make a contract with people to stop them from copying your idea. Check.
�Now, the immediate problem is, as you pointed out, if A and B agree to this contract, that's fine. But what if C does not? How can I stop C from copying my idea?�
Check. It’s hard, because as we agree: “… there is no property rights on ideas,…�, and there is no contract for C to abide with.
�To illustrate the principle I would use, suppose that B steals a certain amount of money from A.�
But this analogy is going to fail because there are property rights on property such as money, but, as we agree, “… there is no property rights on ideas,…�
“One week later, B dies, but his will specifies that the money go to his son, C. If A finds out about this, should a court not be able to order C to allow A to reclaim his money, even if C was not aware of the theft? And if C was aware of the theft, couldn't C be punished for aiding B in the crime by failing to even notify the rightful owner of where his money is?�
So you agree this analogy is not applicable. Continuing…
�Assuming that you agree with the above, then consider the following: A agrees to sell a book he wrote to B, but only after B agrees to a contract that says B can't make derived works. The contract states that B can not show the book to anyone unless they agree to the contract as well.
�B then shows the book to C. If C accepts the contract, then there is no breach of contract. But what if C doesn't accept the contract? C could make a derived work, since he never agreed to the contract.�
Correct, since “… there is no property rights on ideas,…� and since C is under no contractual agreement with A, C is free to do what he wants with his person, property and the ideas in the book.
�But, just as an innocent person must return stolen loot if reasonably possible, shouldn't a court be able to order an innocent person to stop perpetuating the injuries to A that resulted from B's crime? After all, A could correctly argue that C would never have been able to make the derived work if B had never violated the contract. What is C's defense? That it is his God-given right to profit from the crimes of others at the expense of the victim?�
C has committed no crime against A and so naturally, no defense for C is required at all. There was no contract between A and C and so no contract was violated. And since “… there is no property rights on ideas,…�, there is no property stolen or in need of returning. There can be no damages due to A from C.
�Hasn't A been injured? After all, what does it mean to own property if not to control it? If A gives a book to B on the condition that B not use the book in a certain way, then if B violates the contract, B has taken away control from A, and thus violated A's property right. If C knowingly helps B perpetuate the very events that A wished to stop with his property right, is C not a criminal?�
B's violation is not in the theft of the physical book and handing it to C. The issue is the ideas in the book. C has not injured A since he is under no contract to A. C is not restricted by any contract with A in what he can do with his own person or property as long as he does not infringe on A’s property rights. And since “… there is no property rights on ideas,…�, he can be performing no crime either by force or fraud in respect to A and the book and in respect to the contractual arrangement between A and B.
A has a claim against B due to a contractual arrangement of essentially keeping a secret. A has no claim against C at all.
Published: July 14, 2006 2:13 AM
This is not surprising. There is a global growing anti-property movement. Ä°ntellectual or otherwise.
Anti IP movement is more visible especially on the net because technology is making theft easier from stealign music and priated movies to rhe socialist open source movement.
It is sad that Mises Ä°nst. is supporting this socialist agenda.
Published: July 14, 2006 6:59 AM
One of the core problems is trying to prove a negative. One cannot prove that a story/movie/drug would _not_ have been made in the absence of restrictive IP regulation.
At the same time, it is easy to demonstrate that public domain chemicals/stories/processes are continually utilized to produce wealth. It would be interesting to tally up just how much one company, Disney(c)(tm, reg us pat off) has earned by repackaging public domain stories like Cinderella, Snow White, The Little Mermaid, the music used in Fantasia, etc., as compared to the corporation's original works like 101 Dalmations.
Everything has a cost and benefit. The benefits to Disney of cherry-picking wonderful stories at will cannot be denied. But what then about the glories that might-have-been had Disney allowed others to do with Disney materials what Disney has so beautifully done with other's prior work?
There is only one way to know. Repeal. Restrictive IP can always be reinstated at some future date if the benefits prove to be less than the costs.
Published: July 14, 2006 9:22 AM
Ktibuk,
What is socialist about it? Because technology has made something more available to all it is thus socialist? This is absured. Also what is the theft? What is your criteria for ownership? The downloading of songs and movies is clearly an example of scarcity eliminated, so what in your mind justifies the property? The French socialist Proudon was wrong when he said property is theft but I believe we can say that unjust property is theft. Even Adam Smith, who was supporter of copyrights (in the form of a limited monopoly), saw the right of others to copy and distribute the works of others freely. He saw no harm in A buying a book and then lending it to B. Then B copys the book and sells his new copy to C. He thought this should be applied to printing not just in handwriting. So what is different from the printing press to the internet? Sure it may be able to spread it even more but I fail to see how it is theft and a socialist agenda.
Published: July 14, 2006 9:24 AM
The basic problem is that copyright's have been changed far beyond their original purpose. Lengthening the period of copyright has removed the incentive to work. Allowing companies to hold copyrights has made them able to "farm" talent.
Take it back to the old way. Individuals hold copyrights, and they're only good for 10 years (or some arbritrary number less than the typical working lifespan) or the copyright holder's death. This allows artists works to generate income for them, but not indefinitely.
As for patents, the proof of concept rules have to be stricter, otherwise you'll get people trying to patent things that they cannot currently make. In other words, make the working model, patent it as opposed to the other way around.
Published: July 14, 2006 10:05 AM
Property rights are not defined by what someone gains, but by what someone looses becasue they deal with limited resources. In the case of copyrights and patents, the "owners" do not loose their creations, but they do loose market share, a monopoly on distribution and implementation. Well, ok, but those aren't rights.
Another thing, is copyrights are not contract rights. Contracts are something that are opted in to, not something imposed by the state on every passer by third party. If I send you $100 bill in the mail and attached to the letter is a note that says "by opening this you owe me $200" - I can't imagine any libertarian that would consider that a valid contract right even if the state mandated it.
A myth is that copyrights lead to creation. They don't. Creation will happen either way, the question is will the market center around information controls or information services? In that respect, copyrights are more like a government regulation that a personal property right.
Published: July 14, 2006 10:51 AM
Nick"The entire basis for property rights is that it is a system to properly allocate scarce goods."
Some ideas are scarce. If they weren't, we'd all be geniuses. The copyright and patent laws don't protect common ideas. You have to work hard to prove a patent is for a unique process or application, that is, scarce. In defending a copyright infringement, you have to prove that someone used extensive portions of your exact words.
Besides, allocating scarce resources is not the only reason for property rights. Water is not scarce, but you can't drink the water on my property without my permission. Property rights are designed to protect property. By the way, you can't patent or copyright ideas. Patents are for the results of ideas, such as processes or machinery. Copyrights are for books, music, plays, etc., which result from ideas plus many hours of labor. Both copyrights and patents protect the results of mixing one's ideas with one's labor in the production of something. They protect one's labor, and hence investment of capital toward instantiating an idea.
Published: July 14, 2006 10:56 AM
Blah, let me say I like how you've given an honest run at copyright as a contract issue. In a free market, media companies could arrange their own copyright contracts at terms that benefited all parties (and not arbitrary like copyright law).
You still can't apply contracts to third parties. Imagine landscaping company A contracts with person B to do his yard on Thursday. Then A does C's yard on Thursday instead. While A has broken his contract with B, B can't demand that C (the recipient of the landscaping work) pay B compensation.
Likewise, no copyright contract would commute responsibility to a third party, even one that benefited from the breach.
Published: July 14, 2006 11:08 AM
Roger,
Yes, some Ideas are scarce, and the longer one can keep it scarce the more they can gain from it. But once it is known it is no longer scarce. Propery should be taken from a reason of scarcity not because there are few of it but because it is rivalrous. Take your example of water, yes water is very abundant, but this does not mean it is not scarce. The water on your land is your property because if I come on your land and drink your water that means you cannot have it. If I write a book however, then yes I have put in much labor and the fruit of my labor is the property in that first book I created, not the ideas expressed within. I would expect to gain by selling the book first. My labor in writing the book does not grant me the property of the ordering of the words. Mixing ones labor gives you the right of propery to physical things. You can say that a copyright is necessary to reward the author but I don't believe that to be the case.
Published: July 14, 2006 11:37 AM
Nick, A book is the ordering of words. If you re-order the words, it's no longer the same book. That's why I can take the ideas of another person's book and write my own book using those ideas, but different words, and not infringe copyright. The number of notes on the musical scale are very limited. The genius of a song is in the arrangement of those notes. I can use the same notes, and similar arrangements of notes, to another's song and not infringe on copyright. But I can't copy a book word-for-word or a song note-for-note, otherwise I'm stealing the property of another person who invested capital (the money to live on, at least) in creating those arrangements of words and songs.
Copyrights and patents don't protect ideas, they protect property in which one has invested substantial capital. Drugs are a good example. Companies must invest millions of dollars in research to invent new drugs. Patents only protect that newly created property.
Every patent and copyright has had substantial capital invested in it or it wouldn't have been produced. Once produced, it becomes the property of the producer just as much as unoccupied land became the property of the one who mixed his labor in improving the land.
One could argue that when I copy another person's work, I make a second version of it so that the owner is not deprived of its use. So if a pharma company produces a new drug and I copy it, the pharma company can still sell it's drug while I sell mine. So copyright infringement isn't theft in the same way that when I steal nother person's car, he loses use of that car.
Still, I couldn't have produced the same new drug without investing similar amounts of R&D that the inventor invested. So when I copy his new drug, I'm using his research without compensating him for it. Also, I take revenue that he would normally get if I hadn't copied his new drug. Both are types of theft.
Property doesn't consist just in its possession. That is the mistake the Fascists made and that the current environment movement makes. Both will let you keep property in your name and no one else can use it. But they will control how and when you use it and how much you can earn from it. Yet they claim they are honoring property rights.
Without patents and copyrights, I can expend large amounts of capital and labor producing something, and then others can take all of the revenue I intended to get from it to repay my investment and to earn a living in the future. If that's not theft, then I don't know what theft means.
Published: July 14, 2006 1:05 PM
The underlying problem regarding the growing anti-IP sentiment is a pending paradigm shift in global culture and technology. We are in the midst of a fundamental evolution in how and why we do things. Previously, music and movies and other IP required substantial resources to market, package and distribute. With the growth of technology and connectedness we have reached a point where anyone, anywhere on the globe, can make their IP available to everyone else for only a modest amount of resources. An amount within the reach of even smaller middle class incomes. The owners of the traditional IP outlets and channels, on the other hand, are jealous of their perrogatives and priviliges. They defend their rights under an antiquated system that is no longer possible to enforce. Meanwhile, the consumer is being increasingly abused, their personal information looted and their systems altered and corrupted by the clumsy attempts of the channel owners to maintain the status quo. Thus generating the perceived resentment. Personally I liken the situation to the first world war when mankind learned that cavalry charges were not a good idea against machine gun nests. The old ways of doing things are passing. The new ways are arriving daily. Those that choose to adapt to the new circumstances will survive, while others will perish.
Published: July 14, 2006 1:30 PM
Roger
"So when I copy his new drug, I'm using his research without compensating him for it."
No, you are using your own research expertise to "reverse engineer" the drug so that you can re-produce the formula, which uses your own invested resources in the hopes of future revenue. "Formula" in my eyes is the key term here. A formula is an idea. It cannot be owned once it is expressed. Individuals, organizations, corporations, etc may do everything possible outside of appeal to IP law to attempt to conceal a "formula", whether that formula is a cd-key for software, for a drug, etc but once that formula is known, then they cannot morally prohibit that knowledge from being used.
"Also, I take revenue that he would normally get if I hadn't copied his new drug. Both are types of theft."
How can you make a present claim to indefinate resources in the future? Even if you could definately know the prospective amount of revenue, I fail to see how you could excersize a claim to it prior to the actual exchange in which you gain title of possession to it.
Published: July 14, 2006 1:54 PM
Dan:"No, you are using your own research expertise to "reverse engineer" the drug so that you can re-produce the formula, which uses your own invested resources in the hopes of future revenue."
Wrong. The copier is reverse engineering my property. He would have nothing to reverse engineer if I hadn't invested millions weeding out the alternatives. It can take decades of research to develop a new drug because of the many false paths you'll follow. The copier doesn't have to endure any of that. As an entrepreneur, I faced a lot of uncertainty and made a lot of mistakes which cost me dearly. The copier benefits from my mistakes. He faces no uncertainty. He benefits from my enormous capital investment and labor in trial and error. His costs in reverse engineering are puny compared to mine in R&D.
I'm not making a claim on future revenue. I'm planning to use my property in a way that will benefit me. That's the right of any property owner. If someone else can take that property and use it for their benefit without compensating me, then I can't plan at all, except on failure. Should I plan to spend a billion dollars on R&D on a new drug, knowing that competitors will be able to copy that drug, sell it for less, and become wealthy? I'll never make back even a fraction of my R&D if I sell at the same price as my competitor who has no R&D costs. No, I'll set back and wait for some fool to do all the heavy R&D and then steal his new drug.
Published: July 14, 2006 2:54 PM
No they aren't. He still has his research, he still has his drug. Also, you didn't factor in the other side of the equasion. Patents drive up R&D costs because they kill collaberation between researchers at different companies.
If someone risks big money to drill an oil well on the property next door, and then when he finds oil I drill a well on mine. Yes, I am using his research without compensation. Yes, I am taking revenue that he would normally get. So what. That's how the real world works.
If he was smart, he would have got me in on it before he drilled, and convinced me to spilt some of the costs in return for a portion of the revenue. That's why when pharmacuticals don't have patents they collaberate and their individual costs go way down while innovation goes up, but when they do have patents then they don't and their R&D costs go way up while innovation goes down.
Published: July 14, 2006 2:56 PM
Roger,
"Wrong. The copier is reverse engineering my property."
-The only way this is so is if you assert that I dont fully own a product which I have purchased.
"He would have nothing to reverse engineer if I hadn't invested millions weeding out the alternatives. It can take decades of research to develop a new drug because of the many false paths you'll follow. The copier doesn't have to endure any of that. As an entrepreneur, I faced a lot of uncertainty and made a lot of mistakes which cost me dearly. The copier benefits from my mistakes. He faces no uncertainty. He benefits from my enormous capital investment and labor in trial and error. His costs in reverse engineering are puny compared to mine in R&D."
- Is there an argument here, or are you complaining that its unfair?
"I'm not making a claim on future revenue. I'm planning to use my property in a way that will benefit me." But earlier you said: "I take revenue that he would normally get if I hadn't copied his new drug."
- If you are taking revenue that another company WOULD HAVE RECEIVED if you hadn't copied their product then you are making the case that a company may justly use a claim to future hypothetical revenue to stop their product from being copied.
Published: July 14, 2006 3:11 PM
This argument could apply to entreprenuership in general, couldn't it? Is there a difference in principle between the first drug company that produces a particular new formula and the first person to open a new style of restaurant? But surely granting every entrepreneur a monopoly on his form of doing business would be an absolute mockery of the free market. So how do you draw a line that isn't arbitrary?
Published: July 14, 2006 3:17 PM
Quick followup to my comments about the dearth of real IP "success stories", and my recounting of the one recent example put forth by patent attorney Dennis Crouch, which he basically retracted when I questioned him about it. I saw just a while ago this recent column by law professor Marci Hamilton, where she says, "As I argued in a 2001 column, however, copyright continues to be a productive engine for creativity and an enforceable norm, and there is little reason to plan its funeral just yet."
I looked at her 2001 column. I saw no argument whatsoever that "copyright continues to be a productive engine for creativity". I don't even see a claim to that effect in the piece; it seems more just a recital of positive law. Am I missing something?
Published: July 14, 2006 3:44 PM
You guys need to read Kirzner's article on entrepreneurship at http://www.mercatus.org/research_area/cfilter.3/researcharea_list.asp. To paraphrase, the entrepreneur is motivated by, and plans according to pure profits. Take away copyright and patent protection and the entrepreneur faces no risks or need to plan; he's guaranteed nothing but failure and loss. All of his research and labor will be charity. Unless you're Bill Gates or Buffet, why would you do it?
"So how do you draw a line that isn't arbitrary?" It's not easy. That's why the legislation in long and the courts full. But I think the current law does a pretty good job. However, I would extend patents forever, like copyright law, so that I could pass them on to my children.
Published: July 14, 2006 4:01 PM
Eliminating IP protection would be like setting up a bank in which depositors were guaranteed to lose their money if they deposit with the bank, because the bank will give the money so someone else who will profit from it. IP protects the entrepreneur's invested capital more than it protects his ideas or products. Putting the emphasis on the idea or the final product, such as a book, sidetracks the real issue, which is protection of the entrepreneur's investment.
Published: July 14, 2006 4:14 PM
From the NYU web site on Israel Kirzner is this comment: "When entrepreneurs discover, for example, a use of resources, they bring these resources into a new (economic) existence. Accordingly, they have created something ex nihilo and therefore are entitled to the associated profit on generally-accepted moral principles." So I guess I would claim that they have a claim on the future earnings of their IP.
Published: July 14, 2006 4:56 PM
PR, you cannot draw a line that isn't arbitrary. The entire reason for the absurdities that copyright and patent are being expanded to are because of the effort to mold the law to fit a particular business model.
Where would Disney be if they had not had all that wonderful public domain material to choose from? Yet that is exactly what they are doing with their own materials, locking them away from anyone else doing what Disney itself did.
The difference between a moderate, who asserts that the "limited time" grant of monopoly is in fact a good thing, and the radical who says abolish the whole cesspool of restrictive IP law, are very difficult to tell apart when what is happening is a complete destruction of what it means to have a "public domain" at all.
Either restrictive IP is good, and therefore no time limit at all is a good thing, or restrictive IP is bad as demonstrated by the amplified abuses that the extended time is showing.
It is "ad absurdum" being played out before our very eyes.
Published: July 14, 2006 10:12 PM
I guess someone here didn't like my little attempt at humor.
Published: July 15, 2006 1:37 AM
Roger's arguments are simply arguments for socialism. Government-enforced idea monopolies encourage certain kinds of entrepreneurial activities while punishing others. That's no different than any other socialist program, where one can always point to those who benefit as "proof" it works. Do point to the drug mega-companies as proof drug patents work! But don't mention the millions of people who die due to artificially high prices, or all the lost opportunities for competitors to reproduce and improve drugs.
The real key issues — like the fact that copyright law must necessarily prevent third parties from engaging in voluntary, peaceful exchange — are always ignored while the socialist points to the great achievements his laws promote.
Socialists can never, however, actually prove that their system is superior to a free market without state interference. How could they?
Published: July 16, 2006 3:45 AM
why are abolitionists so sure their view is not defending pure socialism? By simply denying the possibility of art works to being unique intellectual (re)sources, unmistakeably tied to one individual, and by advocating the radical prevalence of the need of the group over that one person’s source of earning, how are they going to make libertarians forget they’re clearly defending “the group� against “the single individual�? Pure socialism.
Where’s the difference between “their� Socialism and the one they pretend to be fighting?
Allocation of scarce resources! Right? Abolitionists say out of the blue that “ALL ECONOMICAL PROPERTY RULES� where invented “TO AVOID CONFLICT OVER SCARCE RESSOURCES�, because they read it in Hoppe (certainly, the idea that this author said it in a different context doesn’t bother them. Well and why not fight for the restoration of monarchy while you’re at it?) and worse, they carry on from there as if this premise was accepted by everyone: they therefore deny property quality to artistic creation!
Such syllogism is awfully biased though. Just as much as people saying teenage masturbation is good because it makes man feel more comfortable about sex. Since everyone has the right to feel good… you have to masturbate! Thank god I know this now because otherwise I’d miss on a great life experience!
So thanks a lot to all the abolitionists for informing us that artistic creation cannot be scarce since THEY define property through scarcity. Now I feel better too when somebody claims he’s the author of my work.
Published: July 16, 2006 4:49 AM
"why are abolitionists so sure their view is not defending pure socialism?"
Because government idea monopolies, like government trade monopolies and spectrum licensing monopolies and welfare monopolies and farm subsidies, do not exist in a free market.
"Where’s the difference between “their� Socialism and the one they pretend to be fighting?"
A. The anti-IP position is free-market, anti-coercion. It speaks for itself.
B. The pro-IP position requires a powerful state that:
1. Interferes with peaceful, private exchanges between third parties.
2. Defines legal and illegal exchange of ideas in an arbitrary and changing manner.
3. Defines arbitrary expiration periods for idea monopolies. True property has no expiration date.
4. Restricts the peaceful uses people may put their own physical property to.
5. Does the above for the "greater good", understanding that the sacrifice of individual freedom is required.
Socialism in a nutshell. (And the nuts still dominate, unfortunately.)
Published: July 17, 2006 7:51 AM
Those who want to abolish IP are fighting a straw man. It's the only way they can win. IP doesn't protect ideas, as they claim. It protects the entrepreneurs invest of capital in the work of making an idea a reality. At no time in history, nor at any place, has copyright or patents protected an idea. Any intro text to the laws starts out with the warning that no one can copyright or patent an idea. The copyright has to apply to a specific work of art, and the patent to a physical device. Copyright does not prevent another entrepreneur from creating another work of art based on the same idea but treated differently. Nor does patent prevent someone from inventing a solution to the same problem but using different methods. Abolitionists may break their arms pattings themselves on the back for destroying their straw man, but the rest of us want to talk about the real world.
Published: July 17, 2006 8:53 AM
I wonder how Roger intends to maintain his restriction of ideas intellectual expression against me without initiating violence. Or will he let me opt out of his crazy scheme peacefully?
On another tangent, I wonder if Roger has ever sung Happy Birthday at a party, or shown a rented video to a roomful of friends, or lent out a videotaped TV show. If so, he's just another thievin' "IP crook" like the rest of us. Pot, meet kettle.
Published: July 17, 2006 9:26 AM
Paul: "Or will he let me opt out of his crazy scheme peacefully?"
Wouldn't you use violence to defend your property? IP laws do nothing but protect one's property.
Published: July 17, 2006 9:54 AM
@Paul D,
“A. The anti-IP position is free-market, anti-coercion. It speaks for itself.�
If it’d speak for itself there would be no need to defend it so vehemently.
Plagiarism harms private identity as a homesteaded resource, in the name of the right to freebee.
“B. The pro-IP position requires a powerful state�
Not more than drunk driving does.
“I wonder if Roger has ever sung Happy Birthday at a party? Roger's just another thievin' "IP crook" like the rest of us�
No libertarian cares if you just drive your car drunk on your own lawn.
@Roger M
while I am glad to agree with most of your arguments Roger, I must say I’m less convinced when it comes to patents. It needs a different reasoning. The point is that, in my eyes, patent is hardly to be associated with a single identity, like an artistic product is. Patent always implies a prevalent “anonymous� function, dissociating it from its “maker�, while art is it’s own purpose, on the contrary…
Published: July 17, 2006 10:17 AM
Paul D, very well said. Many people seem to forget that without government to enforce it, there is no way I can tell someone else what they may or may not do with yet another someone else. I have control only over my own actions, or those actions that involve me.
Just like being unable to imagine a world without drivers licenses.
It may seem just too convenient for me to say this, but the onus of proof is on those who would impose the regulations upon everyone else (by force) to demonstrate that the benefits *will* outweigh the costs both in the crushing of independent innovation (since there are now things people are not allowed to do) _and_ the cost of the supporting the infrastructure that is required for enforcement.
Roger M., "IP laws do nothing but protect one's property."
Roger, if I buy your book, it's not your book anymore. It's mine. Why do you assume you have control over what I do with _my_ book?
Personally, I like copyright. I like the restriction of attribution, that if you knowingly use someone else's text at least admit it. Claiming the ideas are mine when I didn't invent them is fraud. But I also know that the present costs of enforcement and abuse do not make up for the benefits paid to authors any more than any other government granted monopoly works better than the free-market alternative.
Published: July 17, 2006 10:20 AM
artison: "“I wonder if Roger has ever sung Happy Birthday at a party? Roger's just another thievin' "IP crook" like the rest of us�
No libertarian cares if you just drive your car drunk on your own lawn."
You are implying here there is an analogy between the two. There is not. The reason you can drive drunk on your own property is that you do not violate anyone else's property rights when you do so.
By contrast, under the notion of copyright, copyright can be violated whether the infringing activity is on public or private land; for profit or not; de minimus or not. You are just confused. This is symptomatic of those who favor IP: they do not even realize what it is they favor. Every time you point to an injust case, they say, 'Why I'm not in favor of THAT"--i.e., they continue to distance themselves from current copyright law, saying that while they support the idea of copyright they don't support how it's currently implemented in positive law. Leaving you to wonder, well then what type of system exactly do you really advocate? When you ask them, they say, hell, I'm no copyright expert. Quite exasperating.
Curt Howland:
"Personally, I like copyright. I like the restriction of attribution, that if you knowingly use someone else's text at least admit it. Claiming the ideas are mine when I didn't invent them is fraud. But I also know that the present costs of enforcement and abuse do not make up for the benefits paid to authors any more than any other government granted monopoly works better than the free-market alternative."
Curt, what do you mean "Claiming the ideas are mine when I didn't invent them is fraud"--? In my experience libertarians often throw the term "fraud" around without any clear or careful definition of the term. Are you saying merely lying is fraud? Who is the *victim* of the "fraud" of "claiming ideas are mine when I dind't invent them"? What if I tell a girl at a bar, "Hey, I invented the Internet," to impress her. Is this "fraud"?
Published: July 17, 2006 10:43 AM
"...if I buy your book, it's not your book anymore. It's mine."
The bound paper that contains my book, belongs to you, but not the content. You guys are guilty of over-simplication. When you use the term book, it conveys two meanings: 1) the paper and binding and 2) the content. You're free to sell the book of meaning #1, but not #2. A painting is another example. You're free to sell a painting that you bought, but not free to photograph the painting and sell copies. Why, because I have capital invested in it which is my property, not yours.
"Happy Birthday" is another example of where anti-IP people simply don't understand the concept or the law. When I sing "Happy Birthday" at my child's party, I don't infringe upon IP laws because I'm not making any money off it. The same goes for taping movies at home for personal use.
I would think patents more worthy of protection because the R&D capital involved in producing what the patent protects is much larger that what's involved in copyrights, except maybe for motion pictures.
Anarchos justify the use of violence to protect property, so even in an anarcho state, I could use violence to protect my IP property. Who's going to stop me or tell me that IP is not really property? This is a broader issue, but I'm curious who makes the laws in an Anarcho society?
Published: July 17, 2006 12:01 PM
Someone has written that no evidence exists for the benefits of IP protection. But keep in mind that Austrians ignore empirical evidence. A priori reasoning prevails. Based on Israel Kirzner's analysis of entrepreneurship, I think you would have to argue for IP protection or you gut entrepreneurship completely, and the entrepreneur is the heart and sole of Austrian economics.
Published: July 17, 2006 12:09 PM
"the entrepreneur is the heart and sole of Austrian economics."
I'd argue that it is private property that is the heart and sole of Austrian economics and Austrian law.
To grasp why IP does not qualify as a form of property, one must look at the motivation behind the creation of the concept of property in the first place, from a praxeological perspective. Without the potential for conflict due to physical scarcity of means, there is no need for the idea of property. And once an idea or recipe, song or design is in the public domain, it is no longer scarce. Not scarce? Not property. One person's use of a non-scarce thing does not deprive another from the use of it.
Published: July 17, 2006 12:45 PM
On what basis do you separate the two? Why couldn't you just as well claim that I own the water but not the wetness? Or I own my body, but not the right to sleep in on Sundays? "The content" is just a convenient abstraction, referring to certain physical characteristics of the bound pages that I own. Treating it as a separate, actually-existing entity amounts to begging the question.
Published: July 17, 2006 12:46 PM
I'd like one you anti-IP people to explain how an entrepreneur will survive without IP. Let's take an example. Suppose I'm rich and invest $10 million to invent a new engine that will achieve 100 mpg. I had enough money to invent the engine, but not to produce it. I had assumed the patent laws would enable me to contract with manufacturers to produce the engine in exchange for licensing fees that would earn a decent return on my $10 million investment. But suddenly, my society changes into a pure anarchist society and IP no longer exists. How will I make my investment back?
To get things started, here's how I think the situation will develop: Manufacturers will take my idea and make the engine without paying me a dime. I'll have to declare bankruptcy since I have spent all of my money and have no source of income.
How will anarchism rectify this situation?
Published: July 17, 2006 1:08 PM
Roger,
I'll forget for a moment that you are searching for utility evidence, which has NO bearing on whether IP or no IP is correct according to Austrianism.
Let's say our entrepreneur comes up with the concept of the 100 mpg engine (such engines have already existed for a long time - see the Honda C-50 and C-90 Cub scooter / motorcycle).
And let's say he invests major funds into putting together a successful patent application / dossier, instead of investing his time and capital developing production techniques and equipment, as well as attracting more capital (This is already a pretty damning case against the patent system).
Why should the taxpayer, as well as other innovators that would like to produce such a device, reward the patent-seeking behavior? In other words, why should government reward socially unproductive behavior?
Published: July 17, 2006 3:41 PM
Vince,
I don't follow how inventing something is socially unproductive.
"And let's say he invests major funds into putting together a successful patent application / dossier..." The patent process is not that expensive and irrelevant to my question. The major cost is the R&D. For the sake of simplification, and to keep on track, let's assume that the patent process is costless.
Also, I'm not searching for utility evidence. As Kirzner and Mises indicate, property rights are framework of free enterprise, but entrepreneurs provide the engine. The whole purpose of liberty is to free the entrepreneur to do what he does best. If IP laws hinder the work of entrepreneurs, then let's do away with them. To paraphrase Mises, let's examine whether the policy you advocate (eliminting IP) will achieve the goal you claim it will.
Can you tell me how the engine entrepreneur will recover his R&D investment without IP?
Published: July 17, 2006 5:03 PM
Roger M, "When I sing "Happy Birthday" at my child's party, I don't infringe upon IP laws because I'm not making any money off it."
False. You're not violating IP laws because the IP laws specifically exclude materials in what the laws define as the "public domain", a region of the law where _Happy Birthday_ resides. You can make all the money you want to singing Happy Birthday, money has nothing to do with it.
"Can you tell me how the engine entrepreneur will recover his R&D investment without IP?"
No. Can you tell me how it was that Filo T. Farnsworth was able to die a pauper with IP? You're advocating coercive IP regulations without first demonstrating "whether the policy you advocate will achieve the goal you claim it will".
Mr. Kinsella, we've been back and forth on that before. You and I disagree. Shall we leave it at that?
Published: July 17, 2006 5:27 PM
That's a loaded question if I ever saw one. Who says we must go from (say) a 30mpg engine to the 100mpg one in a single heroic leap by a lone entrepreneur? It's flashy and makes a good story, but why is it necessarily better or more realistic than making a series of incremental improvements to the 30mpg engine until we arrive at 100? If the 30mpg engine is patented, there's little incentive to research those incremental improvements. The patent holder can simply sit back and collect his monopoly revenue, while his competitors aren't even allowed to try to improve on it on their own.
Of course in today's world of massive patent portfolios, the 100mpg inventor might not even benefit anyway. He's increasingly likely to find that some component of his design vaguely resembles an obscure, already existing patent. So not only does he get nothing from his $100 million investment, he gets to pay triple damages and lawyer fees too.
Published: July 17, 2006 5:43 PM
Happy Birthday is actually still copyrighted. Snopes.com has more. The irony of this is that Happy Birthday To You was derived from an earlier song, Good Morning To All. Had today's copyright laws been in effect at the time HB was written, it would have been illegal.
Published: July 17, 2006 5:53 PM
Thanks, PR. Too bad the rest of copyrighted material isn't given such wide latitude in terms of use.
Open Source software uses copyright exactly for that attribution aspect that I like. I can use it for anything I want to, make all the money from it that I can in any way I can figure out how to do so. The only thing I cannot do is stop anyone else from doing the same.
Published: July 17, 2006 6:12 PM
Curt--you may leave it alone, of course, if you wish. I for one think it is very confused and bordering on incoherent to make such claims. The problem is they are used to justify policies. I just made a longer post on all this here: The Problem with "Fraud".
Published: July 17, 2006 6:20 PM
Curt:"Can you tell me how it was that Filo T. Farnsworth was able to die a pauper with IP?"
That's easy! IP gives the entrepreneur th opportunity to make money; it does not guarantee it. The device patented may be lousy. The definition of entrepreneurship involves the uncertainty of success. Abolishing IP destroys entrepreneurship by removing that uncertainty; without IP, the entrepreneur is guaranteed failure.
PR:"If the 30mpg engine is patented, there's little incentive to research those incremental improvements." Not true. Most patents are for incremental changes. Besides, the example of the engine that gets 100 mpg was just an example. The invention could be anything. Can't you guys stay on task? You're worse than a bunch of kindergarteners! Address the main question: How will the entrepreneur make back his investment in R&D without IP protection!
Published: July 17, 2006 6:57 PM
Roger M., "IP gives the entrepreneur th opportunity to make money; it does not guarantee it. The device patented may be lousy."
Ah, it's clear the name did not ring a bell. He invented television.
I'll go back to F/OSS again for the IP-less environment. Collaboration, adding features to "scratch an itch", for in-house use, for specific purposes, yet the world benefits from all these improvements specifically because they are not locked down by restrictive copyright and patent. Considering that this same collaborative aspect is being applied to hardware, I would also expect that in an environment without restrictive IP laws this kind of work would continue.
"Address the main question: How will the entrepreneur make back his investment in R&D without IP protection!"
I will also repeat: Since you are calling for the restrictive regulation, why don't you support your assertion that the entrepreneur _won't_ make back his investment without it?
Published: July 17, 2006 8:37 PM
I always thought John Logie Baird invented television. Never heard of Farnsworth.
Published: July 18, 2006 2:19 AM
I’m really surprised to read this Dr. Kinsella:
“The reason you can drive drunk on your own property is that you do not violate anyone else's property rights when you do so.
By contrast, under the notion of copyright, copyright can be violated whether the infringing activity is on public or private land; for profit or not; de minimus or not. You are just confused. ... Leaving you to wonder, well then what type of system exactly do you really advocate? When you ask them, they say, hell, I'm no copyright expert. Quite exasperating.
Please don’t be exasperated. You are an expert on IP laws, and yet, you omit to see that the PRINCIPLES of copyright have different consequences that different governments interpret, due to their coercion monopoly, differently. What you call above “THE notion of copyright� is hardly universal in that case, wouldn’t you agree?
See in the UK (not a rogue State), for instance this particular regulation:
The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 extend the definition of literary work to include design material for programs, allow some back-up copying of licensed software, and provide for limited 'de compiling' of licensed programs to make them work with other programs.
Can’t you accept Dr. Kinsella that a man can agree to the punishment of some crime, but still disagrees with death penalty?
Published: July 18, 2006 5:05 AM
Peter, I did get the name wrong. It's Philo T. Farnsworth.
http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/frtv023.htm
Looking a little bit deeper, thank you Google, I think his experience is a good example of what is possible even without patent/copyright. Farnsworth invented because that's what he did. Same as Tesla. And Newton, Leibnitz, Archamedes, and all the other inventors and innovators that were around before copyright/patent were invented.
Published: July 18, 2006 7:34 AM
Curt:"...why don't you support your assertion that the entrepreneur won't make back his investment without it?"
I thought that was what I did in the example. I can't see any way that an entrepreneur can make back his R&D investment without patent protection. I thought that maybe you anti-IP people had worked through the difficulties and had some ideas that I didn't.
"Farnsworth invented because that's what he did." I have no problem with that. A lot of people choose not to patent or copyright their work for various reasons. But they're not entrepreneurs. In the past, many inventors, such as Ben Franklin, were independently wealthy and did research as a hobby. Others were subsidized by wealthy people who expected no return on their investment. Those people have contributed a great deal to society. But do we want to base technological progress on charity?
While great scientists contributed to our wealth of knowledge, some economic historians have observed that science played a small role in economic development until the 20th century. Why? Science was their hobby and inventions were usually impractical. Real progress came from tinkerers and mechanics who were entrepreneurs and expected to make a buck on their inventions.
Entrepreneurs, by definition, want to make a buck from their investment in R&D. Without patents they can't, and we're left to relying on charity for tech progress and economic development.
Published: July 18, 2006 8:48 AM
Roger M said;
"Entrepreneurs, by definition, want to make a buck from their investment in R&D. Without patents they can't, and we're left to relying on charity for tech progress and economic development."
Ridiculous. Humans have many other motivations for achievement than simply making money based on a force monopoly. Mastery is one, fame is another, increasing productivity and spreading the benefits is another.
And MOST entrepreneurs have neither patents nor copyrights to thank for their living (and do just fine innovating in small increments but advancing the race), therefore your argument defaults to a utility one, QED
Published: July 18, 2006 11:52 AM
"Address the main question: How will the entrepreneur make back his investment in R&D without IP protection!"
Let me re-phrase the question:
"How will I make a living if I can't force someone to pay me what I want for my labor?"
Published: July 18, 2006 12:14 PM
Roger selectively quotes me;
"...he invests major funds into putting together a successful patent application / dossier, instead of investing his time and capital developing production techniques and equipment, as well as attracting more capital...
...Why should the taxpayer, as well as other innovators that would like to produce such a device, reward the patent-seeking behavior? In other words, why should government reward socially unproductive behavior?"
Roger;
"I don't follow how inventing something is socially unproductive".
Re-read what I actually SAID - I did NOT say inventing was socially unproductive, but that filing patent applications and excluding others from developing similar solutions at the point of a gun IS socially unproductive (however productive to the monopolist or wealth-maximizing; again, your argument reduces to utility and again QED).
Published: July 18, 2006 12:36 PM
Vince:"Humans have many other motivations for achievement..." Yes, but entrepreneurs are motivated by profit, according to the definitions of Mises and Kirzner. That's why we call them entrepreneurs.
Quasibill:""How will I make a living if I can't force someone to pay me what I want for my labor?" How does that relate to the topic? Entrepreneurs with patents can't force consumers to pay the price that the entrepreneur wants. They can't force consumers to buy anything. If an entrepreneur decides to license his product to someone else to make, he can't force manufacturers to do anything. He has to negotiate with them. The only force involved with a patent is to force anyone who wants to use my invention to negotiate with me on a price for doing so. If no one wants to use it, I'm out of luck.
Published: July 18, 2006 12:37 PM
Roger said;
"...entrepreneurs are motivated by profit, according to the definitions of Mises and Kirzner. That's why we call them entrepreneurs".
Your reply assumes facts not in evidence - that it takes a patent to make a profit.
Whether the patent motivates or refrains from motivating an individual to commit economic (or supra-economic) behavior is irrelevant to the principle. The question is - is state force used?
Roger;
"The...force involved with a patent is to force anyone who wants to use my invention to negotiate with me..."
Exactly how, then, did the human race advance from the discovery of fire through Issac Newton, Copernicus, Lister, and Priestley without a patent process?
Published: July 18, 2006 12:45 PM
"The only force involved with a patent is to force anyone who wants to use my invention to negotiate with me on a price for doing so. If no one wants to use it, I'm out of luck"
The only force involved with unions is to force anyone who wants to use labor to negotiate with them on a price for doing so. If no one wants to use labor, unions are out of luck.
Besides, you are putting the cart before the horse - you're assuming the invention is "yours" to begin with. What happens if we both independently make the same invention at the same time? Which one of us "owns" it? And by what philosophically consistent rationale do you support your conclusion?
The thing you social engineers always forget is that you are violating actual physical property rights in order to do accomplish the forced subsidy of your preferred social outcomes. If you want to subsidize invention, you have the same option I give to people who want to have a safety net for the poor - "feel free to voluntarily contribute".
Published: July 18, 2006 12:54 PM
I always have to bury my face in my palms whenever I see certain people try to debate IP. It's always funny to watch them bounce between property theory and practical questions of entrepreneuralism whenever they're backed into a corner on the other.
Guys: there are two separate questions here.
1) Is IP a valid type of property?
2) Is it possible for an entrepreneur to recover an investment in the production of an intellectual work that others value?
Does *anyone* have an explanation for the second? So far, all I've ever seen is, essentially, "who cares about profits? We don't need markets in *this* particular good!" If you want to trivialize the importance of markets, just say so.
Imagine that 100 people are willing to pay $100 each in order to use some software package. Imagine someone is willing to provide it to all of them for $10,000. And here's the catch -- 99 of them won't be interested until someone else has tried it out. (i.e., the typical case) If the 99 are free to help themselves to it without paying, and the entrepreneur knows this in advance, he will probably just not make it. Such an outcome is clearly Pareto-inefficient. The customers prefer being able to trade that money for that software, and the entrepreneur prefers being able to receive that money for that service. In the absence of IP, this improvement just doesn't happen, unless you can show some other way the entrepreneur can somehow charge for it.
Published: July 18, 2006 1:23 PM
Quasibill:"you're assuming the invention is "yours" to begin with. What happens if we both independently make the same invention at the same time?"
You're doing the typical anarcho trick of blowing smoke in order to make the situation more confusing. If two inventors invent exactly the same device at exactly the same time (both highly unlikely), they' have to agree to share the patent or fight it out in court. Either way, someone will end up with the patent and we're back to my original question: How will the entrepreneur earn back his investment in R&D without a patent?
"...you are violating actual physical property rights..." No, IP protects property rights--the property that the entrepreneur invested in the R&D that produced the invention.
Published: July 18, 2006 1:27 PM
Person, Excellent points. I think a lot of the confusion comes from determining what IP protects. It doesn't protect ideas or the product that results from those ideas, whether works of art or engines. It protects the entrepreneur's investment in R&D that translates ideas into products that he can sell to consumers.
Published: July 18, 2006 1:32 PM
Person,
"I always have to bury my face in my palms whenever I see certain people try to debate IP."
Me too.
"So far, all I've ever seen is, essentially, "who cares about profits? We don't need markets in *this* particular good!" If you want to trivialize the importance of markets, just say so."
Wrong. What I say is that this particular concept is not property to begin with, therefore markets aren't even relevant. Let's have the same conversation about the atmosphere. Do you think we need to have profits to have a clean atmosphere? Are you against creating an emissions market that forces you to pay for the air you breath, and for the pollutants you exhale into the atmosphere. If you are, why are you against markets? Why don't you just come out and admit it?
Roger,
"You're doing the typical anarcho trick of blowing smoke in order to make the situation more confusing."
Funny that - I'd say the same thing about you. You didn't, in fact, answer my question. So I'll ask it again:
What principled reason do you propose to separate the two claims to the "property".
You claim that these people will go to court over it, but that pre-supposes the answer to the question I've asked: Which side should the court come down on? Based upon what principled reasoning?
Until you answer those questions, you're just blowing smoke to cover the fact that you're advocating social engineering in the guise of creating property rights.
"No, IP protects property rights--the property that the entrepreneur invested in the R&D that produced the invention"
No, it violates my rights to use my actual, physical property in way that does not agress against you or your actual, physical property. You have no property right to recoup your expenses. You have the right to use your physical property in non-aggressing ways and to sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it, regardless of what it cost you to make it, or the fact that someone else is able to make it for lower cost.
"It protects the entrepreneur's investment in R&D that translates ideas into products that he can sell to consumers."
Glad to see that at some point you recognize the social engineering aspects of your vision. You want to protect a certain style of business model, because you like it. So instead of allowing the market to sort it out, you impose the edict of a central planner.
Published: July 18, 2006 2:00 PM
quasibill:
Wrong. What I say is that this particular concept is not property to begin with, therefore markets aren't even relevant. Let's have the same conversation about the atmosphere. Do you think we need to have profits to have a clean atmosphere? Are you against creating an emissions market that forces you to pay for the air you breath, and for the pollutants you exhale into the atmosphere. If you are, why are you against markets? Why don't you just come out and admit it?
Without fail, you are blurring the two issues. When I talk about the importance of markets, I'm talking about the practical consequences of not having IP. If people cannot exclude others from their intellectual property as they would their physical property, why would entrepreneurs bother producting it? Can you explain what would drive entrepreneurial innovation in IP-heavy goods?
(And of course, I am in favor of charging people for pollution they dump on others, but I'm not even sure you understood your own analogy, so I'm just not going to touch that one.)
Published: July 18, 2006 2:06 PM
Person;
"In the absence of IP, this improvement just doesn't happen, unless you can show some other way the entrepreneur can somehow charge for it."
Baloney. Innovation occurs regardless, as I have already proven.
If there is a need, someone will find a way to fill it. Conversely, any need that requires the initiation of government force to fulfill is immoral, Pareto-efficiency notwithstanding.
Published: July 18, 2006 2:07 PM
Person;
"If people cannot exclude others from their intellectual property as they would their physical property, why would entrepreneurs bother producting it?"
It happens ALL THE TIME. Patents are not a requirement for innovation or for profits. I doubt your daily work output is patentable - do you still not earn a salary which is at least partly "profit"?
But again, you are trying to steer the argument into a utility comparison.
Published: July 18, 2006 2:15 PM
Person,
Without fail, you are dodging and weaving again. As I, and now Vince, have repeatedly shown, your initial assumption is one that requires proof, and in fact fails in the face of history. Yet you'll bob, weave, dart, and dodge, claiming people are stupid, putting words in your mouth, etc. just so you can avoid answering the question, just as you consistently have done.
And fear not, I perfectly understand my analogy. That's why I gave it. I didn't expect you to touch it, because it would force you to answer the question you have so far managed to avoid.
"Can you explain what would drive entrepreneurial innovation in IP-heavy goods?"
As I, Curt, Vince, and others have repeatedly pointed out and explained, in nauseating detail, the market will, through a variety of mechanisms. You may not like those mechanisms, but as I pointed out above, that just makes you a different stripe of socialist engineer, using your centralized planning powers to subsidize the business model you prefer.
Published: July 18, 2006 2:21 PM
Vince_Daliessie:
Innovation occurs regardless, as I have already proven.
You haven't proven anything. In the specific example I showed, where the IP represents most of the product, and it can be easily copied, he can't recover his investment, so he doesn't make it. I don't care if you can cite refinements to existing products that rely on slow market adaptation reflecting upfront capital costs; you need to prove it for the case where the entire good (such as a movie) can be instantly copied.
If there is a need, someone will find a way to fill it.
Complete and total non-sequitur. There was a need for toilet paper in the Soviet Union, and it didn't always get filled, for example. (In case you're about to prove your inability to follow a point: yes, I know a free market is not the same as the Soviet Union. My point was that a number of other preconditions exist other than "there exists a need" before that need is filled.)
Conversely, any need that requires the initiation of government force to fulfill is immoral, Pareto-efficiency notwithstanding.
What would you say to a socialist who said the same thing, but replaced "initiation of government force" with "enforcement of private property rights"? Okay, take that response, and apply it to what you just said.
It happens ALL THE TIME. Patents are not a requirement for innovation or for profits.
You're not following what I said. I accept that people can earn a profit in a patent free regime (note: I meant there exists some way to profit, not necessarily with intellectual works). I accept that people will do non-profit research in a patent-free regime. I do not accept that there will be for-profit innovation in a patent free regime (at least in cases where the required investment is high enough an information transmission costs are low enough, which holds for a large number of cases.)
I doubt your daily work output is patentable - do you still not earn a salary which is at least partly "profit"?
To the extent that it consists of intellectual works, you're damn right my employer can assert intellectual property rights over it. (I'll pardon your sloppy usage of the term "patent".)
But again, you are trying to steer the argument into a utility comparison.
I'm pointing out the very real inefficient outcomes accruing from total non-enforcement of IP. And I'm not "steering" anything; that *is* the discussion.
quasibill:
I showed how your analogy is irrelevant to the question under discussion and showed how it would help my case to the extent that I could conceive of its relevance. Because of that, I doubt you actually understand what you are claiming the parallels to be. I have responded to it sufficiently. Go ahead and try to salvage it, but I'm not crossing my fingers.
Please point me to where you showed a way for an entrepreneur to recover his costs, which I have *not* some time in the past thoroughly debunked.
Published: July 18, 2006 2:40 PM
Aww, Person, you hurt my feelings--why no hounding? Why no "pouncing" on my every post as you threatened to do in private email?
Published: July 18, 2006 3:13 PM
Aww,
Only hippies, feminists, and garbage collectors say "aww". Which are you?
Person,
Yep, that's my name, what can I do you for?
you hurt
I hurt? Or you hurt? Or do you hurt because what I do hurts you?
my feelings
"your" feelings? Feelings aren't scarce. no conflict, no property rights, no "your". Get it?
--why
Why not?
no hounding?
Can't hound if you don't have hounds, right?
Why no "pouncing"
Ohhhh, now we're pouncing! I thought we were talking about dogs. But I guess dogs can pounce. Though I guess it's more of a cat thing.
on my every post
"My every"? Who says "my every"?
as you threatened to do
Threats! Yay! I like threats!
in private email?
Guess it wasn't so private, now, was it.
(Sorry if this post too closely reminds you of your style in responding to me on the blog and via email.)
Published: July 18, 2006 3:25 PM
I'll concede a point to the anti-IP crowd: Some businesses don't patent new inventions because in the patent application you give away most of your secrets, making it much easier for competitors to copy your invention. Without patent protection, entrepreneurs would have to spend more money on security and disguising new inventions. Those that couldn't be disguised, they might just ignore.
But the same couldn't be said for copyright. Artwork is too easy to copy. Artists would have to rely on charity to survive.
Published: July 18, 2006 3:28 PM
"What about "intellectual property rights"? Rothbard defended the copyright as a contract made with consumers not to reprint a work, resell it, or falsely attribute the source. A patent, on the other hand, is a government grant of monopoly privilege to the first discoverer of certain types of inventions to get to the government patent office."
I found this in a recent Rockwell tribute to Rothbard. On the patent issue, I would think that Rothbard could see the connection between "first discoverer of certain types of inventions" and the first person to use undeveloped land. I believe Kirzner calls it the "finders keepers" principle. But even if you don't accept that reasoning, anti-IP people should consider Kirzner's principle that the entrepreneur has a right to profit from his investments. This doesn't mean that he's guaranteed a ROI, but that if there is a ROI, it should go to the investor and not another. This is no more than saying that if I buy a bond, I should get the interest on it and not another.
Published: July 19, 2006 9:34 AM
The copier is also an entrepreneur. He risks capital to satisfy a demand that may or may not be there by the time his product reaches the market. So by the same reasoning, he is entitled to the return on his investment, even if that investment is smaller than the first mover's. IP singles out a favored subclass of entrepreneurs for special treatment at the expense of all others.
Several times you've stated that IP protects the investment of inventors, but you haven't completed the statement. Protects it from what exactly? Not physical trespass, certainly. IP laws aren't necessary to punish someone who burns down a laboratory or kidnaps scientists and forces them to reveal trade secrets. What IP protects investment from is competition. However, no one is entitled to such "protection" in a free market.
Published: July 19, 2006 10:41 AM
@Roger M
I don’t know if you gave a thought at my comments above so I will elaborate since I sense some similarities in our “feelings� about copyright…
You say: “But even if you don't accept that particular Rothbard reasoning (which I actually do, to 100%), anti-patent people should consider Kirzner's principle that the entrepreneur has a right to profit from his investments.�
The trouble I find here is to know what defines an entrepreneur and how to determine if royalties are HIS?
There’s quite a probability that two people develop the same patentable invention independently (hardly the same poem though) in fact. Does the 5 minutes advantage at the registration office justify the abrogation of rights for the later one? (No)
Think about Einstein’s restricted relativity (not really patentable, I agree, even though Einstein was ironically employed in the patent office…). It is said that even though it was such a breakthrough, almost simultaneously, the French mathematician Poincarré came to the same conclusions though with a mathematical method!
The point is, as soon as you are looking for a distinct universal PURPOSE, or a FUNCTION (like in scientific research too), you must consider an inherent restriction to the originality of your invention… strictly speaking, "the function is the author"...
Now, I feel terrible to give away all these first class arguments to IP-opponents that actually treat both copyright and patent as being one disease. On the other hand, they always seem so busy with their own indignation, they probably won’t even care, or try to understand… why this is valuable.
Published: July 19, 2006 10:57 AM
Person;
"I accept that people can earn a profit in a patent free regime (note: I meant there exists some way to profit, not necessarily with intellectual works). I accept that people will do non-profit research in a patent-free regime. I do not accept that there will be for-profit innovation in a patent free regime (at least in cases where the required investment is high enough an information transmission costs are low enough, which holds for a large number of cases.)".
You are introducing interpersonal utility comparisons into the analysis, which violates Mises subjective value theorem.
"You haven't proven anything."
Then tell me - what proportion of the for-profit activity that occurrs in this country would fail to occurr without patents? In terms of people employed, it has to be less than half the workforce, if even anywhere near that.
Published: July 19, 2006 11:32 AM
You are introducing interpersonal utility comparisons into the analysis, which violates Mises subjective value theorem.
Um, no, I'm not. I'm really, really not. The question of whether a for profit-activity involvining intellectual work production when the good can be costlessly reproduced would occur, has nothing to do with the question of intersubjective utility comparisons (whether one person's pleasure can be cardinally compared to others). You're quite clearly just dropping terms to sound smart.
Here's a piece of advice (and I'd give this to everyone): if you don't know how to use those big words properly, please, just don't use them.
what proportion of the for-profit activity that occurrs in this country would fail to occurr without patents? In terms of people employed, it has to be less than half the workforce, if even anywhere near that.
What's with your narrow focus on patents? This discussion is about intellectual property, which can include copyrights. And yes, a significant, and ever-growing proprtion of human activity is devoted to producing intellectual works that the hiring entrepreneur would need to have rights in, in order to be worth producing. What that exact number is? I don't know, but more importantly, I don't know the relevance.
Published: July 19, 2006 12:07 PM
Artisan,
Yes, you make some good points. It's reasonable to assume that two people will arrive at the same idea at the same time. But as you know, you can't patent ideas. So the entrepreneur must invest some capital to instantiate his idea. That will place some distance between the two. But if they happen to reach the patent office at the same time with identical patents, they will have just two choices--1) join forces or 2) slug it out in court. If one happens to reach the patent office 5 minutes before the other, the situation is somewhat similar to that of homesteading: the guy who got there first gets the land.
PR:"The copier is also an entrepreneur." Yes, but he's earning money from the investment of another, which is theft. IP doesn't protect inventors from competition at all. Other inventors are free to try their own solutions to problems. It should be clear that IP was intended, and actually does protect the entrepreneur's investment in R&D, for without patents, inventors would do all they could to keep the techniques for making their invention a secret from competitors in order to protect his investment.
To look at it in another perspective, without a patent, an entrepreneur could enclose his invention in a black box with inputs and outputs and require any purchaser to sign a a contract agreeing not to open the box or allow anyone else to open the box and provide a stiff penalty for doing so. But that would invovle high transaction costs. IP laws lower those costs.
Published: July 19, 2006 12:14 PM
Person;
"I do not accept that there will be for-profit innovation in a patent free regime (at least in cases where the required investment is high enough an information transmission costs are low enough, which holds for a large number of cases.)"."
Me;
"You are introducing interpersonal utility comparisons into the analysis, which violates Mises subjective value theorem."
Person;
"Um, no, I'm not. I'm really, really not. The question of whether a for profit-activity involvining intellectual work production when the good can be costlessly reproduced would occur, has nothing to do with the question of intersubjective utility comparisons (whether one person's pleasure can be cardinally compared to others)."
If you make an assertion ("I do not accept that there will be for-profit innovation in a patent-free regime") while ignoring the vast majority of cases of innovation (which occurs without any thought of patenting it), then further qualify your lack of analysis with squishy value terms like "high enough" and "low enough", then you are arbitrarily selecting economic behavior you approove of for promotion by government force.
You are in essence saying that there won't be "enough" innovation, and I asked, basically "as judged by whom?" It appears that YOU have appointed yourself the judge, and your value judgement on what is "enough" innovation is completely subjective.
Person;
"You're quite clearly just dropping terms to sound smart."
Either you misunderstood my point, or you are a righteous jerk.
Published: July 19, 2006 12:52 PM
Again, this accusation could be directed at a latecomer in any market. Why should IP apply only to certain kinds of entrepreneurship?
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, the entrepreneur can do exactly that, and fully bear the costs for doing so. If his invention is truly worthwhile, it will be profitable anyway. There are no shortcuts; this is the only way to know for sure if IP is really a net benefit or not.
I don't agree than IP necessarily reduces overall costs. The transaction costs are simply replaced with the cost of educating the average voter in order to keep IP policy from being unduly influenced by special interests. A network of secrecy contracts may be harder to set up initially, but will be more resistant to lobbying in the long run.
Published: July 19, 2006 1:24 PM
If you make an assertion ("I do not accept that there will be for-profit innovation in a patent-free regime") while ignoring the vast majority of cases of innovation (which occurs without any thought of patenting it), then further qualify your lack of analysis with squishy value terms like "high enough" and "low enough", then you are arbitrarily selecting economic behavior you approove of for promotion by government force.
Hm, Vince. That's a good point. "high" and "low" would seem to be squishy terms that give enough wiggle room to avoid having to be held accountable for counterexamples. What's one way I could have avoided that problem in making my argument? Well, I could have referenced examples in which I believed this to be the case. I could have alluded to hard examples and thereby avoided the squishiness of saying "high" and "low". I could have mentioned medicines, or books. Hey, what's that little bit after the part you quoted?
HEY!!!! It looks like I already did exactly that! I claimed there was a "large number of cases" ... maybe that was a reference to the "cases" I gave in the passage above! Maybe if that was unclear, you could have asked me to list the cases. Then you wouldn't have to complain about the squishiness of my claim!
In the future, try to read my posts in their entirety. There's a rhyme to my reason.
You are in essence saying that there won't be "enough" innovation, and I asked, basically "as judged by whom?" It appears that YOU have appointed yourself the judge, and your value judgement on what is "enough" innovation is completely subjective.
First of all, even if this were true, my earlier complaint against you would still hold. I pointed out that you incorrectly invoked the concept of intersubjective utility comparisons and a Mises Theorem. Your latest defense affirms what I said; whatever problem there was with my argument, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the intersubjective utility problem. My complaint about your use of big words you don't understand in order to sound smart holds.
Now, as to the point you made: I'm pretty sure I explained the basis for deciding "enough". I believe I appealed to the uncontroversial concept of Pareto optimality. Specifically, people are willing to pay, entrepreneurs are willing to produce that innovation for that pay, but that transaction just won't happen unless there are IP rights because most of those buyers can just copy the work without paying. That's my standard.
Either you misunderstood my point, or you are a righteous jerk.
I have to make it as painful as possible for people to fail to read my posts in full, to forget things halfway through, or to bluff their way through arguments by dropping terms. Stephan_Kinsella uses this as an excuse to avoid serious refutations of arguments he has built a name off of; I call it "tough love for charlatans."
Published: July 19, 2006 1:40 PM
Person, "Specifically, people are willing to pay, entrepreneurs are willing to produce that innovation for that pay, but that transaction just won't happen unless there are IP rights because most of those buyers can just copy the work without paying."
Yet that is not true. No matter how publicly available the recipe for asperin is, I don't make it myself. Someone makes it, and makes enough profit from it to continue making it. Same with cars, bicycles, in fact every material object.
Along with inventing, the inventor would have to competitively produce in order to profit, if not for restrictive IP laws.
So the only thing such an inventor gets with restrictive IP laws is monopoly rents. But along with the few getting to make such monopoly profits, there come the abuses of the many.
Is this really what you're trying to support?
Published: July 19, 2006 2:04 PM
Howland: "Yet that is not true. No matter how publicly available the recipe for asperin is, I don't make it myself. Someone makes it, and makes enough profit from it to continue making it. Same with cars, bicycles, in fact every material object."
NOt only that: you can buy Bayer Aspirin or the more generic aspirin for say 65% the cost. Yet Bayer still sells. Same with Tylenol and generic aceteminophin. Or Motrin and ibuprofin. I always buy cheap ibuprofin; the wife buys Motrin. Motrin is able to charge more because of its reputation etc.
Along with inventing, the inventor would have to competitively produce in order to profit, if not for restrictive IP laws.
So the only thing such an inventor gets with restrictive IP laws is monopoly rents. But along with the few getting to make such monopoly profits, there come the abuses of the many.
Is this really what you're trying to support?"
Published: July 19, 2006 2:08 PM
Person;
"Now, as to the point you made: I'm pretty sure I explained the basis for deciding "enough". I believe I appealed to the uncontroversial concept of Pareto optimality. Specifically, people are willing to pay, entrepreneurs are willing to produce that innovation for that pay, but that transaction just won't happen unless there are IP rights because most of those buyers can just copy the work without paying. That's my standard."
...and you are still avoiding, not refuting my point. Austrian economics is value-free. Simply deciding arbitrarily that innovation is not occurring at a pace that is fast "enough" for your own personal liking because of a lack of a patent regime is subjective in the extreme.
In the absence of patent monopolies, SOME entrepreneurs will forgo SOME investment in SOME innovations. BFD. How's that for a big word?
From your subjective value standpoint, you are horrified that innovation X will not be made by process Y by innovator Z because Z believes he will fail to receive "enough" of a return on investment.
You fail to account for the fact that there are billions of other potential innovators out there, any of whom might find a better, faster , cheaper way to do it than Z's patented process, but are enjoined by force from doing so.
This is the appeal that phony economic conservatives use to justify the patent / regulatory regime that keeps drug prices high "It fosters innovation!"
I, on the other hand, could not give a flying rat about this. Is it because I am an ignoramus? Do I fail to care adequately about my fellow man, denying as I do the right of he and his society to those innovations fostered by the patent system and the forced monopoly it implies? Or is it because I am simply being consistent?
So let's see, you misunderstood my argument (fair enough), then insulted me, then insulted me again, yet, puzzlingly, I am still kicking your butt with logic.
Published: July 19, 2006 2:32 PM
Curt and Stephan,
It's obvious that people will continue to manufacture products in demand that don't have IP protection. Of course there will be other entrepreneurs who will produce products in which they have no R&D investment if a demand exists for them! They'd be idiots not to! But you're missing the point: how will entrepreneurs earn a ROI on NEW inventions?
Here's the problem: When entrepreneurs make products without IP protection, their only investment is in the manufacturing plant, labor and inventory. Competition will reduce the price of the product until the entrepreneurs will earn an average market ROI on that investment. Now if the inventor tries to produce the same product, he has an additional expense--R&D. The price competition from the manufacturers who don't have the burden of the R&D expense will force the inventor to keep his prices at or below those of the competition, leaving him a return on his manufacturing investment, but none on his R&D. Without IP protection of some sort, the inventor is left either providing charity to the public, or relying on charity from wealthy philanthropists like Gate, or relying on gov welfare for researchers. I can't see any way around this conclusion. Do you guys see something that I don't?
How many new products would fail to be introduced due to lack of IP protection? That's hard to tell because you're speculating about the future. Also, each entrepreneur would have to perform his own cost/benefit analysis. But a proxy measure could be the number of new products introduced in countries with IP protection compared those without, for example China vs. the US. Of course, there will be confounding factors, such as wealth.
You guys are misusing monopoly in this discussion. The concept of monopoly generally applies to markets, not individual products. For example, if I invent a new pain killer drug and get a patent on it, I wouldn't have a monopoly because there are many other pain killers out there that can act as substitutes. I can only have a monopoly if I invent an entirely new market, which is hard to do.
Published: July 19, 2006 4:17 PM
IP rights undoubtedly subsidize larger and more costly R&D projects. But what is the cost?
By definition, IP *PREVENTS* small incremental changes in technology, goods, etc. . Obviously, if you make a very small improvement to an existing good, you may find yourself with an IP lawsuit on your hands. For what good is IP if you can circumvent it with tiny changes? So, IP necessarily shifts innovation from the hands of the many into the hands of the few. It outlaws small innovations in order to grant favor to larger innovations. This is really what the pro-IP crowd is defending.
And for good measure, they use force to bring about this change for the worse.
Published: July 19, 2006 7:07 PM
@ Roger M.
Thanks for the answer.
Hmm, I’m not talking about a regulation of the royalties, but the need of a prior justification. This you see as fulfilled because of the homesteading concept. But see, homesteading of a unique “resource� doesn’t really apply for patents in my eyes, as two brains are truly likely to come to a similar solution to solve a problem (nearly) simultaneously (not a poem, I feel compelled to remind to the unlikely other readers of this post). It is arbitrary to say a particular way of solving was homesteaded through first registration in some office, or through the fact the subsequent production is achieved to some degree… as it still doesn’t reflect a specific rational justification of property. See, I feel somehow you can’t TRULY identify the author of a functional solution.
Cheers
Published: July 20, 2006 4:13 AM
Artisan:"See, I feel somehow you can’t TRULY identify the author of a functional solution." You're probably right. Patent's can't work as cleanly as copyright. I think that may be why patent law doesn't try to identify the real owner of a solution, but the owner who mixes labor and capital in the process of instantiating that solution.
Fred:"IP necessarily shifts innovation from the hands of the many into the hands of the few."
I don't see that as being the case. Most patents are for incremental changes by the inventor. If someone else makes an incremental change to my invention, I don't see why I would not be able to patent that change.
"It outlaws small innovations in order to grant favor to larger innovations." The history of patents proves that statement wrong.
Currently, a lot of new products come from the private sector because they can get a patent, but many come from government-financed research. The fuel cell industry, for example, got started because of NASA research. Entrepreneurs didn't have to invest the capital into the initial R&D. Once NASA had the technology to a workable stage, private companies took that research and advanced it further. NASA saved them an enormous amount of R&D costs, which the fuel cell entrepreneurs don't have to worry about repaying. If you kill patent protection, you will kill private research and strengthen the hand of government. The government will decide what areas are worthy of research.
Published: July 20, 2006 9:20 AM
Roger M says;
"Here's the problem: When entrepreneurs make products without IP protection, their only investment is in the manufacturing plant, labor and inventory. Competition will reduce the price of the product until the entrepreneurs will earn an average market ROI on that investment. Now if the inventor tries to produce the same product, he has an additional expense--R&D. The price competition from the manufacturers who don't have the burden of the R&D expense will force the inventor to keep his prices at or below those of the competition, leaving him a return on his manufacturing investment, but none on his R&D."
Not necessarily true. There is more than one way to earn a premium on a product. A patent monopoly is one, a high-quality or high-feature product another, a niche or custom product another, and so on. I am sure there are others.
All that the elimination of patents (I have yet to come around on copyrights Stephan, keep trying though) will do is flatten out the capital investment landscape, which, I would contend, while possibly a bad thing for a few big organizations and "BIG" ideas, will turn out to be neutral or even beneficial for r&d by small entrepreneurs working on smaller problems.
As a side effect, SOME complex products might have their commercialization delayed, again, BFD. While fuel cells might have some commercial application, they are a long way from mass consumer use, and might never get there, patents or no, since they involve so many technical hurdles.
I'll give another example. Nuclear fusion is the holy grail of power generation, because an economic, commercial technology will mean cheap (Remember the talk in the early Atomic Energy era about producing electricity "too cheap to meter"), non-greenhouse-gas-emitting energy. But where is (government) nuclear fusion research being directed - toward large-scale applications that will be controlled by a few gigantic utility companies, or toward small micro or nano-scale applications (which, say, I would favor)?
Favoring a particular innovation, or class or line of innovation involves a value judgement, period. It does not give rise to a property right that should be backed by government force.
Published: July 20, 2006 11:08 AM
Me:"IP necessarily shifts innovation from the hands of the many into the hands of the few."
Roger M:"I don't see that as being the case. Most patents are for incremental changes by the inventor."
But at some point, an improvement will be deemed "too small" - arbitrarily, of course. For example, if I change the composition of the metal used in a small pin on a very large and complex machine, but everything else remains the same, I have almost certainly commited an IP violation, even if the pin IS, in fact, an improvement. If this is not the case, then IP is effectively rendered useless as it can easily be circumvented with any small change. Of course, I believe that this improvement *would* be deemed a violation. Therefore, "small" (always defined arbitrarily by IP law) innovations *ARE* illegal. So my statement still stands. "Small" innovations are outlawed. Of course, "small" innovations are the most common type of innovation. Most people don't have revolutionary ideas every day (I am the exception). So outlawing small innovations effectively blocks the most common type of innovation. What do you think is the cumulative effect of outlawing these millions (billions?) of tiny innovations over time?
As an interesting side note, consider the effect that IP has on R&D. IP necessarily removes some incentive to improve the efficiency/cost-effectiveness of R&D. Therefore, R&D costs will almost-certainly be higher under the IP regime. (This is not in and of itself a reason to eliminate IP. It's just an often overlooked point).
Published: July 20, 2006 3:47 PM
Fred--good comments. I honestly think most people out there are blithely unaware of the horrible and tremendous costs of the patent system--how many small and medium-size tech companies live in daily fear of getting shut down by a competitor or extorted for royalties. There is a patent minefield out there that threatens all of us. There is nothing you can do to stop it or even be sure you are safe (not infringing). The gyrations and expense and maneuvers companies go through in a desperate attempt to stave off a business-ruining patent suit are just horrible, horrible, terribly expensive and inefficiency-causing. Most normal people who advocate patents are ignorant boobs, I believe, who know not what it is they are advocating.
Published: July 20, 2006 3:53 PM
Stephan,
With this: "Most normal people who advocate patents are ignorant boobs, I believe, who know not what it is they are advocating."
You are too kind. Most people, advocating anything beyond nothing, are ignorant boobs who know not what it is they are advocating.
See above in the context of: Government Intervention.
Published: July 20, 2006 5:46 PM
Are there any pro-IP people out there who want to challenge my comments, or are you all convinced now?
Published: July 24, 2006 1:25 PM
Nah, I've used the smallest words I can to explain these basic concepts to you. I don't think I can bear having to make it even simpler.
Published: July 24, 2006 1:32 PM
Good one.
Are you referring to your "there's 'scarcity' in IP" argument from the previous thread, in which I showed that you used two entirely different definitions of "scarcity" interchangeably, or are you referring to your "consequentialist" views which I addressed above?
Published: July 24, 2006 2:37 PM
P.S. Here is a link to the blog where Person argues that there is a kind of "scarcity" in intellectual property: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005196.asp .
This particular argument really develops in the last third of the blog (or so) for those that don't want to reread the whole thing.
If ANYONE can argue logically that I am wrong, feel free.
Published: July 24, 2006 2:45 PM
Fred: As an impartial, objective, neutral, third-party arbiter and the Founder of the Thread, I hereby do Officially Declare you to have Completely Thrashed Mr. Person.
Do let it be known to all and sundry.
Published: July 24, 2006 2:55 PM
I have to agree with you, Stephan (impartially, as well). It's got to be SOOO frustrating for Person -- being unable to explain his brilliant ideas to us little children.
But I'd still like to hear actual arguments from IP supporters if they have anything new to add to this thread or any of the other IP threads.
I'll even give them a head start...
IF we accept the consequentialist/utilitarian view, one could still make the case that I don't KNOW that "the cumulative effect of outlawing these millions (billions?) of tiny innovations over time" (as stated in previous post above) will be worse than the situation that would exist without IP.
Any takers? This is not a trap - I actually think it's an avenue worth pursuing.
Published: July 24, 2006 4:12 PM