Comments (40)

• Matt Robare

  Uh, you may not realize it, but you can't patent theories. It's not a new technology or an application of technology. If you could patent theories there would be no scientific development at all.

  Published: November 15, 2007 11:32 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

  For some criticism of the theory, see...

  http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/theory-of-everything-triples-traffic.html

  http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html

  Published: November 16, 2007 12:42 AM

• Brent

  He was being highly sarcastic, Matt.

  It gets a little heated sometimes when IP is discussed. Some still believe that you ought to be able to own ideas and expressions of ideas, so that you can legally coerce other people from trading their real physical property in the marketplace, in order to temporarily give yourself a profitable racket.

  Published: November 16, 2007 12:44 AM

• twv

  As I understand it, the difference should be this: you can't patent a discovery, or the model of the discovery. You can only copyright the write-up.

  The trouble is, in recent patent law developments, drug companies have been patenting bits of genome. This strikes me as insane. It's patenting what is already there, in nature.

  But that which you conceive and construct MIGHT have some merit as to patent.

  Published: November 16, 2007 1:21 AM

• James Redford

  There has existed a correct quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) discovered by Richard Feynman in 1962, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms, they abandoned this consistent and qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory. They also did not realize that the correct quantum gravity theory is consistent only if a certain set of boundary conditions are imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). This correct theory of quantum gravity is term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur "in the laboratory" are transfered to the cosmological singularities, hence making the universe and life within it possible). It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this infinite series is the best that can be done (somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity).

  For more on that, see the below paper:

  F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

  See also:

  "Omega point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, October 25, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=166977867

  "Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, September 30, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=161222338

  Theophysics http://www.geocities.com/theophysics/

  Published: November 16, 2007 2:36 AM

• David

  Theory patent red herring ( you can't, any more than Darwin could patent the theory of evolution) aside, this point does highlight the stranglehold peer review journals have long had on academic research, and which seems to be breaking down now.

  Peer review might flush out the flaky and insane ideas, but it inevitably blocks the dissemination of worthy new ideas, particul;arly those that threaten the established order.

  Let the flakes and crazies publish, by all means. Ultimately, scientific ideas stand or fall by the force of their argument and their performance in the face of empirical testing, not by the authority of the writer or his backers.

  And, when it comes to natural science (if not the humanities), theories that can't be empirically tested are either vague to the point of meaninglessness, or are scientifically irrelevent, for a theory that fails to yield a testable prediction has no connection with the nature of the world we live in.

  ON the other hand ( recognise that, all you economists?....), peer review does have its uses, particularly for the editors of journals who would prefer not to embarrass themselves.

  For a thoroughly entertaining exercise in postmodernist/socialist baiting, , readers on this forum might want to google 'the sokal hoax' and read all about how Alan Sokal wrote a deliberately nonsensical* paper, submitted it to the editors of 'Social Text', who gleefully published without bothering to have it peer reviewed, seemingly because they sort of liked the sound of the bits they thought they could understand - and I'd warrant, also because the bits they couldn't understand fitted in very well with the general literarey method of postmodernism, which ( best I can make out) sees virtue in making lots of really big words say nothing of any substance at all

  * 'Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity'
  

  Published: November 16, 2007 6:14 AM

• Anthony

  Another 'theory of everything'? :)

  Published: November 16, 2007 6:42 AM

• Stephan Kinsella

  Matt, twv --

  I was being sarcastic. My point was that this guy found some motivation to look for and publish a potentially useful scientific theory, even though he can't get a patent on it.

  The reason he can't patent it (aside from the fact that he's now made it public without even trying to patent it first, though he does have a one-year grace period) is that patents are only for practical applications, not mere "abstract ideas"--things like mathematical algorithms or laws of physics.

  The distinction is not really the "discovery vs. 'write-up'", twv--is is certainly possible to patent discoveries, as long as they are or have a practical application. The distinction in patent law is that you can't patent abstract ideas. If this guy finds a way to have a practical application of this "discovery" he could patent that. For example if he comes up w/ a transistor that works better based on this discovery.

  Published: November 16, 2007 7:42 AM

• Robert M.

  Seems like the value he got from being known as the creator of this theory was enough for him. On the other hand, if someone else took that away from him, he'd probably sue. His incentive was fame and maybe it'll help him get funded by some wasteful person to study a theory that is impossible to prove. Businessmen don't have those incentives. I guess you're okay with all of the innovation in society coming out of universities?

  Lets go through how a person with an invention goes about getting it made and brought to the public. He creates it in his mind, looks at his bank account and sees that it's empty, then decides to go to a venture capital firm. They study if the invention is marketable and if it is a good investment. If there are no patents, then nothing is a good investment, there are no venture cap firms, and only the rich have the ability to manufacture something new (and they probably won't because they'd lose money on it.)

  Published: November 16, 2007 8:02 AM

• Stephan Kinsella

  Robert M.: "Seems like the value he got from being known as the creator of this theory was enough for him. On the other hand, if someone else took that away from him, he'd probably sue."

  Sue on what basis? What cause of action? What property was "taken" "from" him? What are you talking about?

  Published: November 16, 2007 8:26 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Ah, another pretender! The reknowned British physicist Douglas Adams had already provided the answer to everything over 25 years ago.

  Published: November 16, 2007 11:25 AM

• KingofNewport

  People:

  Forget about patents!

  If true, shouldn't this development really annoy Prof. Boettke?

  http://blog.mises.org/archives/007343.asp

  Published: November 16, 2007 10:09 PM

• Person

  "The supporters of IP say that there can be no innovation without the patent system to 'incentivize' people"

  Once again, Stephan, you're showing the depths you're willing to go to in order to rationalize.

  NO ONE has ever made this claim that you're attributing to IP supporters. OF COURSE there would be innovation without IP, just as people would still produce lumber, even if lumber profits were taxed 100%, or people would still dance, even if dancing profits were taxed 100%. What would not exist, however, is the dancing, lumber-making, or -- yes -- *intellectual work production* that requires profit-seeking entrepreneurs in order to exist. And all those would purchase those things, if entrepreneurs found it profitable, would be worse off.

  You even recognize the problems in advocating abolition of IP while being thankful for the existence of the intellectual works that depend on it. (For example, the vulnerability of your brand of libertarianism to the very same calculation critiques of socialism.) This is why you're always trying to handwave some kind of way that it's possible to profit in the production of intellecutal work without IP, and trying to strawman anyone who disproves this fantasy of yours.

  For example, when you proposed one method here:

  http://blog.mises.org/archives/005098.asp

  I explained how it doesn't show a way to produce intellectual works for profit, and then what what your response? To act like I denied intellectual works have ever been produced without IP protection!

  So, keep on rationalizin!

  Published: November 18, 2007 12:06 PM

• ktibuk

  Some people, and compnies dare to give away free physical property for charity and promotion.

  This means all property should be abolished.

  One more vistory to all the socialists.

  Hurraaay

  Published: November 18, 2007 12:24 PM

• ktibuk

  On another note, Kinsella doesnt get tired of attacking strawman.

  With these countless posts he is, very dishonestly, imnplying most if not all pro IP people are utilitarian peo patent law which is not true.

  IP like every type of property is a moral issue. Refuting utilitarian patent law positions is not refuting IP.

  Published: November 18, 2007 12:28 PM

• scineram

  OK

  IP is immoral.

  QED

  Published: November 18, 2007 5:55 PM

• TLWP Sam

  I tend to agree with what Person person said.

  Published: November 18, 2007 7:39 PM

• TLWP Sam

  :\

  Published: November 18, 2007 11:37 PM

• Stephan Kinsella

  Person:

  "The supporters of IP say that there can be no innovation without the patent system to 'incentivize' people"

  Once again, Stephan, you're showing the depths you're willing to go to in order to rationalize.

  NO ONE has ever made this claim that you're attributing to IP supporters.

  I've seen this charge made many times. Trust me.

  OF COURSE there would be innovation without IP, just as people would still produce lumber, even if lumber profits were taxed 100%, or people would still dance, even if dancing profits were taxed 100%. What would not exist, however, is the dancing, lumber-making, or -- yes -- *intellectual work production* that requires profit-seeking entrepreneurs in order to exist. And all those would purchase those things, if entrepreneurs found it profitable, would be worse off.

  So you think there would still be innovation, just not "enough" innovation, is that what you are saying? This is actually implicit in the comments and views of most pro-IP people, but many libertarians don't want to put it this way b/c it reveals the naked utilitarianism behind their view.

  Whichever way you view it, the physics example I noted in this post is still illustrative--can anyone seriously argue that this guy should have a patent on this new physics theory--? That such patents are necessary to have "enough" "physics theorizing"?

  I explained how it doesn't show a way to produce intellectual works for profit, and then what what your response? To act like I denied intellectual works have ever been produced without IP protection!

  Person/Silas, you shouldn't go around denying things like this.

  Published: November 19, 2007 7:24 AM

• Person

  I've seen this charge made many times. Trust me.

  
  
  

  Sorry, I'm not going to trust you. The charge is obviously false, so I highly doubt anyone worth quoting would ever say it. You are clearly reading people out of context if you think it's happened.
  
  

  So you think there would still be innovation, just not "enough" innovation, is that what you are saying?

  
  
  

  Would there be "enough" dancing if all profits derived from dancing were taxed? The consequences of a 100% tax on dancing profits (on dancing) are identical to the consequences of a 100% tax on innovation profits (on innovation), which are, in turn, identical to the consequences of not enforing intellectual property rights (on innovation).
  
  

  This is actually implicit in the comments and views of most pro-IP people, but many libertarians don't want to put it this way b/c it reveals the naked utilitarianism behind their view.

  
  
  

  It's not naked utilitarianism; it's concern about the consequences of a proposed policy, which I'm sure you also have. Do you care if you'd actually want to live under the system of law you propose? If so, you are concerned about the consequences of policies, just like the rest of us are. The question then, is *what* those consequences are. And you yourself always seem to be interested in "proving" that various kinds of innovation would still happen in the absence of IP -- at least until someone shows how flimsy your argument is, at which point you revert to pretending that consequences don't matter.
  
  

  So do consquences matter, or don't they?
  
  

  Person/Silas, you shouldn't go around denying things like this.

  
  
  

  Very funny. You planning to apologize for attributing positions to me I clearly did not hold, in order to make me look stupid and avoid responding to a critical flaw in your ideas?

  Published: November 19, 2007 9:25 AM

• Jeffer

  IP has no moral base.

  At best it is amoral, at worst it is immoral.

  It also have practical effects with moral implications.

  With present and future technological possibilities, only a police state can fully protect IP. Even if they shut down internet, people can easily share copyright material with portable harddrives and similar devices.

  Only minute surveilance of everyone, everywhere, always, will - perhaps - be able to stop it. The IP-lobby has demanded and will continue to demand, ever more extreme measures to protect their monopolistic privileges, just like the old aristocracy. This is and will increasingly be a threat to individual freedom and privacy.

  The only possible advantage with IP to society is utilitarian, but I don't think it is worth it. At least not in present form.

  Published: November 19, 2007 12:35 PM

• Fred Mann

  IP acts as a 100% tax on the sale of items incorporating innovations arbitrarily deemed "too small" (i.e. a patent violation). It therefore stifles smaller innovations in favor of much more rare and costly larger innovations.
  Is this the world you want to live in?
  IP also steers investment away from production and towards R&D, thus lowering the quantity of presently-available goods (and present standard of living). Is this the world you want to live in?
  And IP is also not property (still).

  Published: November 20, 2007 4:39 AM

• Person

  Fred_Mann: IP allows *some* innovations, but not others, to be sold at a profit. That allows innovations of these types to exist, if otherwise no one would do them. It can only "divert" innovations in the sense that it diverts from a non-profit area to a for-profit area.

  Remember, with or without IP, non-profit innovations can exist.

  "And IP is also not property (still)."

  Sorry, we were debating consequences here. Bring up this unsupported assertion again when it's relevant.

  Published: November 20, 2007 8:32 AM

• Fred Mann

  Person: "[IP] can only 'divert' innovations in the sense that it diverts from a non-profit area to a for-profit area."

  First of all, note that when we introduce the concept of IP, we necessarily divide "innovation" into two artificial categories -- "too small" to qualify as property, and "not too small" to qualify as property.
  So your statement is only *partially* true -- i.e. it holds true for larger and more costly R&D projects. That is, under an IP regime, *some* R&D projects will be profitable that would not have otherwise been profitable.
  Of course larger R&D projects would still exist without IP, as long as the resulting product could still be sold at a profit.
  BUT, most importantly, IP makes SMALLER innovations UNprofitable (i.e. changing the composition of some metal parts on a complex machine, or whatever). So it diverts these millions of smaller innovations from the for-profit area to the non-profit area, since they are prohibited from being brought to market. And if they are not brought to market, they will not be seen and/or further improved-upon by a wide audience -- thereby stifling this more "organic" approach to innovation.
  So, to correct your initial statement -- IP diverts some types of innovation (larger ones) into the "for-profit" area, and drives other types of innovation (smaller ones) OUT of the for-profit area. (It is not a one-sided issue, as your post suggests.)
  SO ... with this in mind, you must show how the consequences of reducing the number of smaller, cheaper, and much more common types of innovations will be outweighed by the benefits of increasing the number of larger, more costly innovations. Show your work. Also, you would need to show how you measure these consequences -- i.e. number of inventions, increase in standard of living, etc. ( and again, diverting resources into R&D necessarily means steering some resources away from present production -- lowering present standard of living.)

  Published: November 21, 2007 3:00 AM

• Person

  Fred_Mann: With or without IP, people can fund innovation at a monetary loss (i.e. not for profit). These will happen regardless. IP gets us many *additional* innovations because both for-profit and non-profit incentives exist.

  Is this a "net gain"? Turn it around: is it a "net gain" that people can produce lumber (Holz) for profit, or as charity, if they so choose, rather than just for charity?

  Published: November 21, 2007 8:48 AM

• Fred Mann

  Do you not understand this statement: "IP makes SMALLER innovations UNprofitable"??
  It's certainly true, and the innovation-stifling implications are obvious, as I outlined above.

  Published: November 21, 2007 3:47 PM

• Person

  Fred_Mann: Smaller innovations are UNprofitable, with or without IP.

  Published: November 21, 2007 8:47 PM

• Fred Mann

  Person writes: "Smaller innovations are UNprofitable, with or without IP."

  Are you serious? This type of innovation strikes me as being potentially the MOST profitable. Selling a slightly modified product requires almost zero R&D. So there would be one less hurdle to clear before making a profit. Perhaps you'd like to back up your statement?

  Published: November 21, 2007 9:05 PM

• Person

  Fred_Mann: My point was that their profitability is the same, regardless of whether there is IP. Having IP does not make those small innovations more or less profitable, since they both get no exclusion rights under either system.

  Published: November 21, 2007 9:17 PM

• Fred Mann

  "Having IP does not make those small innovations more or less profitable"

  This is not true. IP makes small innovations unmarketable/unsellable/unprofitable. That's what it's there for!

  Published: November 21, 2007 9:27 PM

• Person

  Fred_Mann: How is that small innovation *less* profitable with IP, than if there were no IP?

  Published: November 21, 2007 9:51 PM

• Fred Mann

  Small innovations (i.e. a small modification of a complex machine) are prevented from entering the market by IP. So, not only are they not profitable, but it is *illegal* to profit from these small innovations.

  Published: November 21, 2007 10:02 PM

• Person

  Fred_Mann: Just to clarify, you're referring to someone who makes a small modification to someone else's design, and who did not invent the original, such that the modified design still falls under the patent of the original? If so, why can't the person who invented the modification sell the knowledge or license the mod to the patent owner?

  And how do you know the original design would even exist, if anyone can just copy it?

  Published: November 21, 2007 11:25 PM

• Fred Mann

  Person: "Just to clarify, you're referring to someone who makes a small modification to someone else's design, and who did not invent the original, such that the modified design still falls under the patent of the original? "

  Yes.

  Person: "If so, why can't the person who invented the modification sell the knowledge or license the mod to the patent owner?"

  Presumably this could be arranged. But, we may have a legal issue with the idea of selling modifications. Doesn't the inventor/patent-holder already "own" his invention AND everything kinda like it? Can I sell you something you already own?
  But even if this is not an issue, IP still sets up major obstacles to the development and distribution of ideas and inventions. For instance, without IP, the modifier of an existing product can ALSO produce and sell the modified product, thereby opening another avenue for profit. More avenues for profit = more innovation.
  Also, under a pro-IP regime, the inventor/patent-holder may or may not see the value in the modification and may close the door to its implementation, even if it may have led to a popular/effective new product. And if multiple people have/submit ideas for modifications, he must act as the "central planner", choosing from the options submitted. He is the final arbiter of all decisions regarding modifications of "his" invention. This concentrates entepeneurial decisions onto one individual. And if he is a good inventor, but a bad entrepeneur, we will see a further deviation from the optimal state of affairs. Also, with more entrepeneurs working on the various modifications, we have a much larger pool of financial resources being dedicated to these modifications. So ... without IP, we would be presented with a much wider range of modifications, and the market would be able to select the best final product.

  Person: "And how do you know the original design would even exist, if anyone can just copy it?"
  Did anyone invent anything "big" before IP? Of course. How did they do it? Why did they do it? We have submitted many ways to make a profit on larger inventions without IP, so I'm not going to reiterate. IP is simply one of many ways to (artificially) make some inventions more profitable. But as I illustrated above, it makes other types of innovation less profitable (and a much greater number of innovations, at that). So again, it is up to you to show your accounting practices -- i.e. how you know that a pro-IP regime will produce more inventions (or however you measure it) than an anti-IP regime.

  Also, I'd like to point out that many of your statements (like the one above) make the incorrect assumption that large complex inventions can only be made one way -- i.e. all at once by a single person or group. But of course, vitrually anything could be invented/developed incrementally, with one low-cost modification being stacked upon another. Pro-IP regimes simply encourage the concentration of innovation into the hands of the few, but it is not a "natural" or necessary environment for innovation.

  Published: November 24, 2007 7:53 PM

• TLWP Sam

  Eh! The burden of proof is on the anti-I.P.'s side. How uncomfortable that the rise in technological innovation went alongside the rise in patent applications and issued. If patents supposedly stifled innovation then modern society should be stagnating, if not going backwards, and it isn't.

  Published: November 24, 2007 8:18 PM

• Fred Mann

  Eh! Actually the burdon of proof is on the pro-IP side since they want to employ coercion to prevent the peaceful non-aggressive use of one's property (unless you wrongly believe that ideas are actually property - i.e. rivalrous). IP is "Investment Protection" and nothing more.
  Your second sentence, while difficult to substantiate (again, how do we measure innovation or progress, and to what controlled non-IP environment are we comparing it to?), commits a correlation/causation error. I might also say that technology has improved with the expansion of the state, therefore the expansion of the state fosters technological innovation. Bzzzt.
  Your third sentence illustrates the failure to distinguish between "workable" and "optimal." People would continue to invent (and therefore progress technologically) under many different levels of governmenent coercion/taxation/oppression. The question is, which system produces the BEST results. And since IP is NOT an actual form of property, it necessarily throws a wrench in the property-rights-based price-rationing system, which has been shown to be optimal (not perfect of course) in allocating resources (including resources consumed by R&D).

  Published: November 24, 2007 9:28 PM

• TLWP Sam

  Sure! ;)

  Looking at wiki on patents:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

  Of claims of benefits versus criticisms, the question is which does society most follow? Are people willing to invest in R&D because they can secure their results with patents and get revenue to pay for the bother of R&D allowing for greater innovation. Or are people patent hogs patenting any and all for the sake of excluding some and suing others? The fact that people have Hi-Def TVs, measure computer performance in GHertz and storage capacity in Gbytes rather than MHertz and Mbytes respectively, amongst other things, points to the former.

  On the other hand, why say that patents are totally excluionary? A patent can exclude inventions of the same types but doesn't affect other unrelated inventions. Nor for that matter do patents guarantee any revenue. It's similar to a land Socialist complaining about someone owning a parcel of land. If told that he could get his own land, he'd probably complain that he wanted the other person's land especially after the first person did the hard work that made the land to be profitable.

  Published: November 24, 2007 10:57 PM

• Stephan Kinsella

  TWLP Sam: "On the other hand, why say that patents are totally excluionary? A patent can exclude inventions of the same types but doesn't affect other unrelated inventions." This is an ignorant statement, obviously made by someone with no experience with the havoc patents wreak. Patents don't affect inventions. They affect products or things people sell, or things people do. Laymen have trouble understanding this, but what is relevant for patentable inventions is not other patents, but prior art (previous publications or public knowledge). E.g., I cannot get a patent for my invention if someone else published an article describing a similar idea 10 years before. It doesnt matter whether the previous guy's idea was patented or not--only whether it was published.

  And patents themselves cover not other inventions, but products etc. that employ the claimed product etc. of the subject patent. E.g., if I have a patent on a mousetrap having a certain configuration, I can stop people from selling a similar mousetrap--whehter *or not* they invented the mousetrap they are selling. But I can't stop someone from "inventing" a new mousetrap that incorporates my own design--they just can't sell copies of it. But they can invent it, even patent it. So my patent doesn't stop any other inventions.

  Why people who have no idea what they are talking about feel compelled to come up with an opinion or to voice it is beyond me.

  Published: November 24, 2007 11:46 PM

• ktibuk

  `Why people who have no idea what they are talking about feel compelled to come up with an opinion or to voice it is beyond me.`

  You are right your highness. We should all come to you and ask permission before voicing opinions.

  The arrogance of the socialists...

  Published: November 25, 2007 4:53 PM

• Fred Mann

  TLWP Sam: From your reply, it appears that you do not understand, or do not agree with, the effects of IP on smaller innovations -- i.e. that they are discouraged.
  You also continue to make the mistake of assuming that because we have x amount of technology, the regime under which this occurs is optimal. In other words, how do you know that we wouldn't have $50 flat screen hi-def TVs in a non-IP regime?
  Also, do you believe that the only way a larger/more-complex invention can come into being is through IP? If not, then you really need to show how you know that the pro-IP state of affairs which discourages smaller innovations and the "organic" or piecemeal approach to invention is superior to the anti-IP state of affairs which does NOT discourage this type of progress.

  Published: November 25, 2007 8:06 PM