≡ Menu

Yeager and Other Letters Re Liberty article “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism”

My article “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism” was published in the December, 2009 issue of Liberty; the March 2010 issue features the following exchange in the “Letters” section. [See archived comments below from the Mises Blog version of this post]

[Update: See Roderick Long’s excellent response to the type of argument Yeager makes below, in his post This Self Is Mine. See also my post “Libertarians” Who Object to “Self-Ownership”]

Philosophizing IP

Thanks to Stephan Kinsella for questioning the justice of intellectual property (“Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,” December 2009). Like many libertarians, he posits property rights as the foundation of libertarian political theory, and suggests that because it is a derivative concept, we stop calling the nonaggression principle an “axiom.” So far so good. But Anthony de Jasay suggests that the concept of “property” itself should in turn be considered derivative, from the still more fundamental principle of liberty of contract. De Jasay also defines “rights” and “liberties” more carefully and usefully than most libertarians, who use these loaded words all too loosely — Kinsella included. (See de Jasay’s “Choice, Contract, Consent,” or “Before Resorting to Politics,” reprinted in “Against Politics.”)

Kinsella’s attempt to show that no well-formulated property rights can apply to pure information seems dubious. Yes, information can escape physical confines and reproduce in ways that physical objects can’t, but so what? Perhaps the real question is not whether IP should be classified ontologically with other forms of  “property,” but whether voluntary agreements can be reached (without the help of legislatures) that would make revelation, or publication, or mishandling of information a tort. Clearly some can; what of contracts to protect trade secrets, and other nondisclosure agreements?

Never mind that the concept of “self-ownership” has philosophical problems that Kinsella does need to take more seriously. I’ve been suspicious of “property rights reductionism” ever since I noticed that it led Rothbard to believe in his own IP rights as an author of copyrighted writings, even as he disparaged the IP rights of professional inventors. At least Kinsella avoids this inconsistency (if that’s what it is).

Kinsella is right to seek the philosophical foundations of the IP question; let’s hope he keeps digging.

Lew Randall
Freeland, WA

What Would Edison Do?

It was a pleasure reading Stephan Kinsella’s piece “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism.” I’m in agreement with its content as regards the nature and source of property rights. What I find impossible to accept is the view that there is no good utilitarian argument in support of legislated patent and copyright law. Would Thomas Edison and his financial backers have invested so much time, effort, and money just for the pleasure of exercising intellectual creativity? I certainly wouldn’t, and I suspect I’m not alone. Having said this, in a free society, would it be a legitimate government function to establish rights where none “naturally” exist, even if the consequence of such legislation would foster an improvement in the quality of human existence? By establishing such rights, or should I say “privileges,” wouldn’t the freedom of action of others be curtailed? Formulated this way I opt for principle over utility, as the slippery slope comes to mind.

Howard Shafran
Shelter Island, NY

The Property of the Mind

Before finally getting around to the topic of his article on intellectual property, Stephan Kinsella trumpets the proposition that each person “owns” his own body; he “inhabits” it; he is its “occupant” — and Kinsella uses those very words. He dismisses as “silly wordplay” the objection that each person just is himself or his body. But who is perpetrating wordplay? Who is tainting sound political philosophy with dubious metaphysics?

Kinsella echoes the old mind-body dichotomy, the notion of the self as “the ghost in the machine” (Gilbert Ryle’s derogatory description of Descartes’ dualism). On the contrary, each person’s mind and consciousness are functions, remarkable functions, of his body and specifically his brain. Does Kinsella really mean that the self is distinct from the body? Does the one survive dissolution of the other? (Does the self exist even before its body is born?) Does Kinsella believe in ghosts or angels? What evidence, beyond very dubious evidence, can he cite? If Kinsella does not really mean what he says, he should use more exact words.

The self-ownership slogan finds some resonance in libertarian circles. But libertarians should go beyond displaying their authenticity to each other; they should try to persuade nonlibertarians. They should avoid irrelevant metaphysics. They should put their best foot forward, not their worst. I do not mean that they should dilute their libertarianism; rather, they should present it attractively.

Perhaps Kinsella could find some (feeble) excuse for his metaphysics, but he would still be putting a worst foot forward.

Leland Yeager
Auburn, AL

Copy Shop

Stephan Kinsella’s argument against IP is seriously flawed. For instance, he states that copyright is “received automatically, whether you want it or not, and is hard to get rid of.” Copyright, that is, the right to make copies of your work, is inherent in the creation of the work. It is not “received” by law. You can waive your copyright easily by simply making copies and distributing them without the required copyright notice. Copyright law recognizes, defines, and controls to some extent your rights to control the copying and dissemination of your work.

He also states that “We libertarians already realize that . . . the right to a reputation protected by defamation law” is illegitimate. This libertarian does not realize such illegitimacy. The libertarian principle is that no person has the right to initiate aggression against another. Spreading lies or untruths to destroy the reputation of another person is clearly within the definition of aggression.

Kinsella makes a number of references to “homesteaders,” mainly, I believe, to emphasize the difference between property that you can hold in your hand, i.e., the soil from your farmland, and the more ephemeral IP which is snatched out of thin air and dissipates in the wind, i.e., the sound of a melody. However, this comparison overlooks the intellectual content of real estate (property) improvement. A farmer who homesteads a parcel of land must decide what crop will be successful on that land. A pineapple ranch in North Dakota will not succeed. Once the crop is chosen, the farmer must implement a plan for the planting and harvesting of the crop. In the case of, say, music, running a melody over in your head or tinkering on a piano is just the beginning of the creative process. It must be transcribed and carefully inspected to make sure that each note is properly chosen and placed. Then you can make your copies, register the copyright and begin selling copies of your work. With a little luck, someone may make a successful recording.

Patents are similar. You come up with the idea, develop it into a saleable product, manufacture copies and sell them. When a buyer buys a copy of your work, either invention or literary work, what does he buy? Under the law, he buys that one copy of your invention. Defining what is embodied in that one copy can get messy because the human mind is messy, but the buyer does not buy anything other than that one copy. He cannot make copies and distribute them.

So what can you do with your copy of the work or invention? You can write a critique of the song or story, quoting reasonably from the work itself to illustrate your points of argument. You can read the story or sing the song to your friends for their enjoyment. You can take your copy of an invention and modify it to suit your needs. You can strip it of unnecessary decoration that does not make it work better. You can take it apart to see how it works, or to repair it or to improve the design so much that you feel justified in applying for a patent on your improvement. You can sell it to someone else. You cannot, however, begin manufacturing the item and selling it. That is true whether the item is a widget, a book, a sheet of music, or a recording.

David Kirkpatrick
Klamath Falls, OR

Body of Work

Although Stephan Kinsella’s article on intellectual property moves smoothly enough from premises to conclusions, those conclusions are (to me at least) so counterintuitive that the argument acts as a reductio ad absurdum, undercutting his premises rather than proving his conclusions.

Let us say that a given work exists only in the memory of the author’s computer. At this time the work could not be more obviously the author’s; in a keystroke he can change it in any way, or abolish it forever. Overnight a hacker invades the machine, copies the work, and reproduces it. This is theft, is it not? If so, then the author retains ownership of the work even after it has left his hard drive. Why, then, would his ownership suddenly be reduced to naught at the instant that he sends it off to a prospective publisher? Reportedly, a British firm offered to publish “Lolita” if Nabokov would consent to the removal of four sentences. Nabokov refused, and the book was not released in Britain until a year later, by a different publisher. Surely this was right.

Kinsella takes it as axiomatic that one’s property rights begins with one’s own body. I think that many authors would consider their ownership of their works as more intimate, and more obvious, than their ownership of their bodies.

Jamie McEwan
Lakeville, CT

Kinsella responds: Mr. Randall asks whether trade secret and nondisclosure agreements could be used to construct a form of IP. I do not believe they can, because such agreements cannot bind third parties. Only by assuming that knowledge is a form of property can you bind third parties, but this assumes there is IP. I address this in further detail in the “Contract vs. Reserved Rights” section of “Against Intellectual Property,” available at StephanKinsella.com. As for philosophical problems with the notion of “self-ownership” — self-ownership just means that you have the right to decide who touches or uses your body, not some other person. What could be more libertarian, or less controversial or problematic?

Mr. Shafran is no doubt right that Edison or other patentees may have benefitted from the patent monopolies granted to them by the state. But the utilitarian case requires a benefit to the economy as a whole, not merely to particular beneficiaries of wealth redistribution. Studies almost universally conclude that there is no such gain — that patents actually restrict innovation. See the post at tinyurl.com/pat-innov for more information on these studies.

Professor Yeager misunderstands my comments. I am, like him, nonreligious. Viewing the mind as distinct from (though not unrelated to or independent of) the brain, and the self as distinct from the body, does not imply a soul or ghosts or angels. It does not imply that there can be a self without the body, or a mind without the brain. It merely implies a distinction. One may think of the mind as an epiphenomenon of the brain, but it is not the brain itself. Likewise I can run and remember with my body but running and remembering are not the same as my body. The “silly wordplay” I referred to is the use of the trite observation that we “are” our bodies (in some real sense) to object to the idea of self-ownership. But atheism is not contrary to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the libertarian idea that you have the say-so over who uses your body — that others need your permission. Self-ownership is the rejection of slavery and aggression. It is perfectly compatible with the idea that there is no soul; that you die when your body dies. In any event, Yeager’s atheism does not prove there are intellectual property rights, or that we are not self-owners.

Mr. Kirkpatrick upbraids me for stating that copyright is received automatically. He asserts that copyright may be waived “by simply making copies and distributing them without the required copyright notice.” Wrong. Copyright notice is not required at all, nor is copyright registration. See Sections 102 and 401 of the Copyright Act, or the “Copyright Basics” brochure at copyright.gov. Copyright notice has not been needed since 1989, when the law was amended per the Berne Convention.

As for reputation rights, Murray Rothbard explained in The Ethics of Liberty why there can be no reputation rights: your reputation is merely what third parties believe about you. You do not own their brains or what they think about you; they are entitled to change their minds about you. Kirkpatrick writes, “If I grow a potato in my back yard, it is my potato. If I write a song in my kitchen, it is my song. They are both my property.” By such reasoning one could argue that you own your wife, your parents, and your country (note the possessive pronoun!); if you discover that the earth is round then “it is my discovery” and you could own that fact. The mistake here is in failing to realize that not every “thing” that one can conceptually identify is an ownable type of thing. Scarce resources are capable of being owned because of the possibility of conflict over use of such things. Other things, such as “songs,” information, and patterns are not ownable things at all. In acting, humans select scarce means to achieve desired ends. Their choice of ends, and means, is guided by information. To successfully act, the scarce resources employed as means need to be owned, because by their nature as scarce resources only one person may use them; but the actor need not “own” the information that guides his choice of means, since he can use this information even if thousands of other people also use this information to guide their own actions.

Mr. McEwan is correct that the hacker is a thief, since he is using the author’s property (his computer) without his permission. But this does not mean that the information he gains access to is property. If the author revealed some private fact — say, that he had a glass eye — and the hacker discovered this and revealed it to the world, the author would have no right to demand that everyone forget this fact or not act on it. Likewise if the information was a novel, musical composition, recipe for a nice soup, or schematic for an improved mousetrap.

[Mises; AM]

Archived comments from the Mises Blog version of this post:

Comments (52) 

  • Floyd LooneyFloyd Looney

    I don’t agree. I think intellectual property should be a basic protected right. If I cannot profit from my invention then where is my incentive to invent or improve a product?

    I do not think a person or company should be able to copyright or own some of the crazy things I have heard lawsuits being over. I don’t think someone should own an idea “over the air television” if they cannot make it.

    I will never change my opinion on that.

    By the way I have copied all those books you guys sell and will make them available for free to everyone. Just kidding.

    Published: January 23, 2010 5:40 PM

  • newspnnewspn

    they’re already free, what else are you offering?

    Published: January 23, 2010 5:44 PM

  • Slim934Slim934

    Mr Floyd seems to be making a leap in logic. Where does it follow that if there were no IP there would be no method to profit from the creation of a new thing?

    What about being first to market? What about being paid by commission for something? What about continuing service agreements (they must buy the product from you, or else they will not be able to get future service for product support/troubleshooting)?

    If it were the case that the only incentives for producing something were from IP, then what about classical composers who actually considered it a compliment to have their works selectively “stolen” by other composers?

    Published: January 23, 2010 6:23 PM

  • newspnnewspn

    civilization only began with the statute of anne. before 1709 that man roamed the earth as a savage.

    Published: January 23, 2010 7:17 PM

  • StrangerStranger

    Given that Kinsella is so predictable, I have compiled as many of the fallacies of intellectual communism as I could think of.

    Fallacies used in the above blog by Kinsella include #1, #4, #5, #10.

    Published: January 23, 2010 7:28 PM

  • ShayShay

    Floyd Looney wrote, “If I cannot profit from my invention then where is my incentive to invent or improve a product?”

    You assume that others are under an obligation to provide the conditions that give you incentive. What if even the current patent laws didn’t provide you incentive; would that be justification for even more draconian laws?

    Published: January 23, 2010 7:49 PM

  • Curt HowlandCurt Howland

    Just let me make sure I have this argument correct.

    Government is fundamentally inefficient. Even a service as prone to efficiencies of scale and the post office cannot function as a government program without taxpayer subsidies and legislated monopolies.

    In every field the free market promotes wealth, provides the win-win interactions of mutually beneficial trade, provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people while benefiting from peace while “war is the health of the state”.

    In every field, government regulation stagnates innovation and raises costs, rationalized with “benefits” that, if they don’t come about, government agents have no liability for their lack.

    Yet we are to believe that without these specific statutes, these particular regulations, all creativity in the human race would cease?

    That somehow, against all experience in every other field of human endeavor other than death and destruction, Intellectual Property is the one thing government does better than the market.

    I need more assurance than that.

    Published: January 23, 2010 8:07 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    Mr Kinsella I think you owe the readers of this blog a detailed header post on how you think an anarchist society can operate:

    a) Without the gang with the biggest gun taking over by force.

    b) Assuming a massive amount of good luck and you survive the gangs for a couple of years, how do you plan to provide a framework for a capitalist economy without the concept of property rights. Because an attack on IP is an attack on property rights per se, and is the advocacy of the enslavement of the individual to the tyranny of the many.

    Objectivism is very different to anarchism.

    Objectivism unreservedly sanctions IP.

    Without IP there can be no liberty of the individual.

    For an alternative view to that of Mises.org, readers can read this thread:

    http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285

    Most particularly the three links I give here on the Mises ‘An Objectivist Recants on IP’ thread:

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/011162.asp#c656112

    Published: January 23, 2010 9:16 PM

  • ShayShay

    A society operates by keeping conflict at a minimum, without putting unncessary restrictions on members. Conflict over limited physical resources is resolved via property rights, whatever they might be (capitalism, socialism, etc.). There is no conflict over things like the idea of burning a wick surrounded by wax, because there is no shortage of “burning a wick surrounded by wax” (this sentence itself contains two copies of the idea), so no need to solve the “problem” of anyone being able to make a candle with his own property.

    Perhaps some members of a society would like a way to fund creation of new ideas, like an improved candle that runs on electricity. If only the creator would benefit, then he has little grounds for forcing a funding scheme on everyone else. If everyone would benefit, then the creator has no need to use force, because everyone would already be cooperating on funding creation.

    If the creator invested funds to create this electric light bulb, produced them, and someone else started producing them as well for a lower price and everyone bought from the latter producer, that would simply be evidence that everyone wasn’t actually interested in such a funding scheme, or perhaps lacked the discipline for it. If it were a discipline problem, everyone might call for IP-like laws, to literally protect them from themselves.

    Published: January 23, 2010 10:20 PM

  • newsonnewson

    objectivists enjoy the concept of the monopoly gang, occupying the entire territory; others like a choice in gangs, with the chance of not having to belong to any gang at all.

    Published: January 23, 2010 10:39 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    The predominance of the use of force in society, newson, and violence, is the logical consequence of the floating abstract that is anarchism. Rand’s words on that are most certainly the truth, as I reiterated here:

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/011509.asp#c655785

    There is no liberty to be found in anarchism. And the anarchists sanction of file sharing is disgusting.

    Published: January 23, 2010 10:48 PM

  • InquisitorInquisitor

    Mr Kinsella I think you owe the readers of this blog a detailed header post on how you think an anarchist society can operate:

    “a) Without the gang with the biggest gun taking over by force.”

    Give For a New Liberty or the Market for Liberty or THe Myth of National Defence or Anarchism and the Law &c. &c. a read? These books have been around for ages, why does Kinsella owe it to you to educate you?

    “b) Assuming a massive amount of good luck and you survive the gangs for a couple of years, how do you plan to provide a framework for a capitalist economy without the concept of property rights. Because an attack on IP is an attack on property rights per se, and is the advocacy of the enslavement of the individual to the tyranny of the many.”
    No, it isn’t. It is an attack on ‘rights’ based on imagined scarcity (of ideas) vs scarcity-based allocative rights (property rights… proper.)

    “Objectivism is very different to anarchism.”

    Right, it’s inconsistent. Anarchism isn’t.

    Published: January 24, 2010 12:34 AM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    “Objectivism is very different to anarchism.”

    Right, it’s inconsistent. Anarchism isn’t.

    How do you think you can have a free society without objective law?

    “If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

    The Virtue of Selfishness “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness

    Anarchy is the violence and chaos of tribalism.

    Give For a New Liberty or the Market for Liberty or THe Myth of National Defence or Anarchism and the Law &c. &c. a read?

    I’m thinking of spending $4 million on the development of a new widget that will revolutionise lives: why am I going to do this if I can’t secure the IP, and profit from its manufacture?

    And no, after spending that money, I don’t plan to risk it all on some type of slick marketing campaign: that is unacceptable, I will not develop the widget.

    See my post on the debunking of Bala’s ‘An Objectivist Recants on IP’:

    http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285#comment-83773

    Published: January 24, 2010 1:59 AM

  • CosminCosmin

    Mark Hubbard, you are simply wrong.
    Anarchy doesn’t simply mean lack of government.
    Anarchy means the rejection of the principles of government. In a society of individuals who have been principled, vigilant and coordinated enough to rid themselves of government, no replacement, such as a gang, or mafia, can prosper.
    An anarchist society would provide an organized protection against force. This falsification of your base assertion invalidates your whole argument.

    Published: January 24, 2010 4:14 AM

  • GuardGuard

    I have very little incentive to produce more than I need, since a good portion of the excess I might produce would be taken from me. I feel this deep in my being, it is not a matter of theory or logic and I act upon this feeling by curtailing my productive potential.
    I get exactly the same feeling when I think about writing a book from the writing of which I will get no advantage except a warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment.
    Laying aside all the logical arguments for a moment, the feeling that I don’t want to do something for nothing has an objective effect on my actions. I feel exactly the same in either case.

    Published: January 24, 2010 6:01 AM

  • Beefcake the MightyBeefcake the Mighty

    Leland Yeagers response is typical: shock and amazement that anyone could adopt a non-utilitarian viewpoint, and a willingness to interpret rights-bases viewpoints in the most uncharitable light.

    Published: January 24, 2010 7:16 AM

  • Stephan KinsellaStephan KinsellaAuthor Profile Page

    Beefcake: I was a bit bemused by Yeager. I’m an atheist like him. He right away saw Christian demons at work in my article. Utterly bizarre and inexplicable.

    Hubbard:

    “How do you think you can have a free society without objective law?”

    Society does need law, and can and would have it absent the state. To assume otherwise is pure ignorance. The real question is: what makes you think a monopolist would produce objective (just) law? Do you expect cats to bark? Ahem.

    Published: January 24, 2010 10:37 AM

  • StrangerStranger

    “Society does need law, and can and would have it absent the state. To assume otherwise is pure ignorance. The real question is: what makes you think a monopolist would produce objective (just) law? Do you expect cats to bark? Ahem.”

    Fallacy 5.

    Published: January 24, 2010 11:18 AM

  • Curt HowlandCurt Howland

    Mark Hubbard raises an interesting question:

    “How do you think you can have a free society without objective law?”

    This is very interesting, because all laws are subjective.

    Killing someone isn’t murder in circumstance A, while it is murder is circumstance B, and if by some chance circumstance C comes up that is not codified in “objective law”, someone has to make a subjective decision as to whether or not it’s murder.

    And that’s just the one “crime” that has always been a crime throughout human history.

    An-archy has nothing to do with a lack of rules. It deals only with a lack of rulers. If I may suggest something in total conflict to Mr. Hubbard’s assertion, it is only in an environment where there are no rulers to make arbitrary and subjective rulings about what other people may or may not do that there is any opportunity to be objective at all.

    Published: January 24, 2010 11:53 AM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    Kinsella, what’s your definition of monopoly?

    Property rights means monopoly!

    I want nothing other than the complete monopoly over how and who uses my car, my house, the book I write, my property!

    There is no liberty to be had without this.

    The best post on this thread is Guard’s. Read it. That is precisely how it would work in a world without IP. I am a businessman: am I going to produce, or advise anyone to put capital into R & D and produce any product, without a monopoly of the IP so they can profit from it – you would have to be brain dead to do so. Your gang is only about ensuring the ‘efforts’ and ‘actions’ of the individual are pissed up against the wall of the ruthless collective.

    Again, my retort to Bala:

    http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285#comment-83773

    Published: January 24, 2010 1:00 PM

  • StrangerStranger

    Mr. Hubbard, communists have always made the argument that property was monopoly. They demand the right to do anything they want with anything without limit. This is the definition of freedom of the anarchist-communist in particular.

    Published: January 24, 2010 1:18 PM

  • Curt HowlandCurt Howland

    Mr Hubbard, you do have 100% control over your book.

    You are the one who chooses when to sell it, or if to sell it, and for how much. It is completely your choice.

    Please then don’t tell me what I may or may not do with MY book.

    Once you sell it, it’s not yours any more. You’ve sold it.

    Published: January 24, 2010 1:18 PM

  • Peter SurdaPeter Surda

    Dear Mark,

    “monopoly” means that entry into market is prevented by force. The statement “Property rights means monopoly” is imprecise. With rival goods, the “monopoly” exists regardless or the legal system, the legal system merely decides “who gets it”. With non-rival goods, this monopoly does not occur naturally, and must be brought into existence by the legal system.

    Published: January 24, 2010 1:31 PM

  • TimTim

    I confess, I’m horribly ignorant on this subject. The IP/anti-IP debate is a little too complicated for me to understand both sides of it.

    However I can’t help but feel that if KInsella’s suggestions to improve patent system were put in place (ie, get the gov out of it) it would actually improve intellectual property protection rather than diminish it.

    What Kinsella is chiefly arguing against as it appears to me, is the current patent system. Taken to the extreme, the IP notion is absurd. People are being arrested, fined and imprisoned for the sole crime of downloading a song that was freely available to them. Nations are imposing their IP agendas on other nations. Private entities are using the patent law to stifle innovation and impede technological progress (a fact that I’ve faced personally). I don’t see how this amounts to justice, when the criteria of what is a crime or not is defined by government bureaucrats, who unfortunately have a poor conception of a slippery slope.

    But at the same time I fail to see how the IP concept would be completely rejected even in a truly free society. Why? Because naturally, individuals and companies would want to protect their intellectual property. But without the state’s enforcing arm, they would seek other methods to do so. Instead of going to the courts and seeking to indict the other guy on grounds of some patent law, they might either find a way to work together for profits, or seek to improve their copy-protection methods. There are just so many ways that the patent chaos envisioned by pro-IP supporters could be avoided by simple entrepreneurial principles.

    It seems that the pro-IP argument could be summed up as follows: if a free market on IP was established then everyone would start copying and stealing each other’s intellectual works. Collective ownership of the products of everyone’s mind will amount to nothing but intellectual communism. Therefore we cannot trust the free market in this case, and we need the government to regulate and restrict and make sure everyone is treated to a fair share of their intellectual contribution. But who again defines what is a “fair share” to the worth of someone’s intellectual product?

    Published: January 24, 2010 1:38 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    You are the one who chooses when to sell it, or if to sell it, and for how much. It is completely your choice.

    Under your looters’ system I have only one shot to sell the book. After than it’s simply looted by the growing army of file-sharers.

    No incentive to write a book there, is there.

    Tim, you’ve got it utterly backwards. The anti-IP lobby are the socialists.

    Published: January 24, 2010 2:45 PM

  • iawaiiawai

    Reportedly, a British firm offered to publish “Lolita” if Nabokov would consent to the removal of four sentences. Nabokov refused, and the book was not released in Britain until a year later, by a different publisher. Surely this was right. – Mr. McEwan

    It would also have been “right” for a competing British firm to offer to publish with those lines included.

    It would also have been “right” for a publisher with a legitimate copy of the work to republish it without those four lines without the author’s consent: It would be quickly dismissed by consumers as an adulterated and censored copy, and the publisher would be harmed in the market.

    If you think IP deserves protection: protect it with your own resources. Don’t steal from me through taxes and forced use of monopoly courts to impose your view on me with my own resources. State involvement in IP is theft, whether or not the copying of works or restricting the copying would be considered such. If there is an objective answer, a monopolistic central planner can never be certain that his subjective rule is the right one. The only way to gauge the “correctness” of any set of laws is to allow voluntary adoption of those laws amongst individuals, and to allow the peaceful resolution of disputes to take place in free courts, rather than an unjustly supported, arbitrary and capricious, monopoly court.

    The world of actors may indeed decide that some sort of IP is correct, but right now it is not a consumer choice but a oligarchic, self-enriching, freedom limiting system that discourages production by creating an anti-commons of patent ownership and creativity by rewarding mediocre works that are published to make a buck rather than cultivate an artistic sentiment.

    Published: January 24, 2010 4:22 PM

  • Stephan KinsellaStephan KinsellaAuthor Profile Page

    Hubbard: “Kinsella, what’s your definition of monopoly?”
    See: Are Patents “Monopolies”?.

    “No incentive to write a book there, is there.”

    is that what your system is based on–setting up “incentives”? Sounds awfully utilitarian to me. Rand is rolling in her grave.

    Published: January 24, 2010 4:26 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    Sounds awfully utilitarian to me

    You have to be kidding. The looters system you recommend is the one based on utilitarianism: where the single creator is forced to have ‘the products of his mind’ shared amongst the many for the ‘greater good’.

    Look at the arguments of your adherents in here: ‘no-IP will be good for it forces constant innovation’ – given creators can only profit for about one day from sale of the first few units until the copiers run off with it – one of the posters even slammed me because I had the cheek to want to still be making money out of one of my widgets/books/et al twenty years after I brought it to market – selfish me – I should have had to invent a widget a year for the good of society. No IP would force me to do that. Your position is bound on slavery of the individual.

    So whose argument is utilitarian here?

    Rand is rolling in her grave.

    Well at least she could afford one. If she was writing and theorising after you get your way, she could have kissed goodbye to book sales for a start.

    Published: January 24, 2010 4:51 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    I said.

    Well at least she could afford one. If she was writing and theorising after you get your way, she could have kissed goodbye to book sales for a start.

    And of course you will be familiar from these threads with the Iooters argument on this. How silly of a someone writing books thinking they should make their money from selling books, they’re not being innovative enough … Perhaps Rand could give readings while pole dancing or something?

    Published: January 24, 2010 5:06 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    Oh, and I’ve noticed the way that you managed to create ‘incentive’ out of context from what I said: my statement was quite evidently not toward your meaning at all.

    Are all anarchists such slippery fish, Mr Kinsella.

    Published: January 24, 2010 5:24 PM

  • LeoLeo

    I’am new to this forum, and to the discussion of IP law. I have question, in current IP law, an patentable Idea is my property, so why I’am forced to give away my property after some numbers of years. If there is an utilitarian reason behind that, cannot the same principles be applied to all property rights? If this question is too naive for the forum, I will apreciaty links where I can found the answer.

    Published: January 24, 2010 6:44 PM

  • ShayShay

    Are others also tired of the personal attacks some posters put in every message? I don’t see them as having any place in a discussion like this.

    Moving on, Tim wrote, “But at the same time I fail to see how the IP concept would be completely rejected even in a truly free society. Why? Because naturally, individuals and companies would want to protect their intellectual property.”

    The critical question: are these things even property? Misapplying a concept can certainly yield benefits to some parties, so it’s not merely a question of whether some people benefit from calling ideas property.

    “It seems that the pro-IP argument could be summed up as follows: if a free market on IP was established then everyone would start copying and stealing each other’s intellectual works. Collective ownership of the products of everyone’s mind will amount to nothing but intellectual communism.”

    Communism deals with scarce goods, like apples and blankets. But a non-scarce good, like the idea of a candle, can be had by everyone without having to share (you can use your idea of a candle in any way, without affecting how I can use my idea of a candle). No theft is necessary; everyone can have their own “idea of a candle”.

    “Therefore we cannot trust the free market in this case, and we need the government to regulate and restrict and make sure everyone is treated to a fair share of their intellectual contribution. But who again defines what is a “fair share” to the worth of someone’s intellectual product?”

    It’s odd that your description of IP sounds exactly like communism, having to bring in the concept of “fair share” for one’s work and calculation of how much something is worth. I realize you’re simply summarizing what you see as the pro-IP position.

    Published: January 24, 2010 6:50 PM

  • Curt HowlandCurt Howland

    Mr Hubbard,

    You are more than welcome to not write your book, if you can imagine no other way to make money from it than to be granted a monopoly by government to be enforced at taxpayer expense.

    In fact, if your imagination is so sparse, your book would very likely suck anyway.

    Published: January 24, 2010 7:00 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    You are more than welcome to not write your book, if you can imagine no other way to make money from it than to be granted a monopoly by government to be enforced at taxpayer expense. In fact, if your imagination is so sparse, your book would very likely suck anyway.

    As I said, the best the IP Socialists can come with is this. You’ve just shot to bits the framework for a capitalist economy – ownership of property, including IP.

    And yes, I believe in the need fo a minarchy, a small state that exists only to, in the classical liberal sense, protect the rights of the individual, and ensure non-initiation of force via objective law, however, I have no problem with IP dealt with in the private sector, and for those fearing big brother, for self policing. If I put a novel online it’s up to me to find and bring to court those copying it: one thing about the Internet is it’s easy to find the file sharing sites. But first my IP has to be recognised, and that I own it.

    Otherwise the looters take us back to feudal England in the Big Step Backwards.

    Published: January 24, 2010 7:21 PM

  • RWWRWW

    This Hubbard fellow is making me miss Silas Barta. Though his arguments weren’t convincing (actually, some of them came close, in my opinion, before ultimately failing), at least he had arguments to put forth.

    On the plus side, maybe we can devise some kind of game based on how often Mr. Hubbard parrots Randist language.

    Published: January 24, 2010 7:23 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    You just spent your time saying nothing RWW – why so many anonymous people in here?

    I had just said:

    And yes, I believe in the need fo a minarchy, a small state that exists only to, in the classical liberal sense, protect the rights of the individual, and ensure non-initiation of force via objective law, however, I have no problem with IP dealt with in the private sector, and for those fearing big brother, for self policing. If I put a novel online it’s up to me to find and bring to court those copying it: one thing about the Internet is it’s easy to find the file sharing sites. But first my IP has to be recognised, and that I own it.

    What’s your opinion on that?

    Published: January 24, 2010 7:39 PM

  • StrangerStranger

    Mr. Shay wrote: “Communism deals with scarce goods, like apples and blankets. But a non-scarce good, like the idea of a candle, can be had by everyone without having to share (you can use your idea of a candle in any way, without affecting how I can use my idea of a candle). No theft is necessary; everyone can have their own “idea of a candle”.”

    That is fallacy 2.

    Published: January 24, 2010 8:19 PM

  • StrangerStranger

    Mr. Leo wrote: “‘am new to this forum, and to the discussion of IP law. I have question, in current IP law, an patentable Idea is my property, so why I’am forced to give away my property after some numbers of years. If there is an utilitarian reason behind that, cannot the same principles be applied to all property rights? If this question is too naive for the forum, I will apreciaty links where I can found the answer.”

    That is fallacy 5.

    Published: January 24, 2010 8:20 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    In addition to stranger, I have also debunked the straw man argument of scarcity here (from another angle, chronology) that the anti-IP lobby falsely use.

    Just start at the ‘Right Bala’ heading one third of the way down:

    http://www.solopassion.com/node/7285#comment-83773

    Published: January 24, 2010 8:31 PM

  • RussRuss

    RWW wrote:

    “On the plus side, maybe we can devise some kind of game based on how often Mr. Hubbard parrots Randist language.”

    I vote for a drinking game. Every time he sounds like Ayn Rand & Nathaniel Branden’s bastard love child, we take a good stiff drink. It would certainly make his posts more… palatable.

    Published: January 24, 2010 8:32 PM

  • RWWRWW

    What’s your opinion on that?

    There’s nothing of substance there to form an opinion about. As usual, you’ve simply stated your views with no argument to back them up. You’ve given no one the slightest reason to agree with you.

    Published: January 24, 2010 9:14 PM

  • RWWRWW

    Ahahahaha! Did anyone else read the most recent link Mark posted? It’s pretty amusing. The part starting with “Imagine if they’d had proper government…” actually made me laugh a little too loud, at this hour.

    Published: January 24, 2010 9:21 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    There’s nothing of substance there to form an opinion about.

    Above I have given a link to a thread where I debunk the looters argument of scarcity as denying IP. Given the paramountcy of scarcity (or not) to the argument against IP, I might have thought that was plenty of grist to squeeze through the mill.

    I have said that even with those who don’t believe a minarchy and objective law is necessary to freedom, I would have no argument with IP dealt with in the private sector, not by the state, and from that self policing.

    Plenty of substance, just no wherewithal or stomach for a debate it would seem.

    Published: January 24, 2010 9:24 PM

  • RWWRWW

    Oh and Mark, if you’re going to parrot, at least get your terminology right. For example, when you say “the floating abstract that is anarchism” and “your ‘scarcity’ argument – the floating abstract,” well, I wouldn’t want your Randist friends to make fun of you.

    The term they use (ad nauseum, like all their second-hand ideas (heh)) is “floating abstraction.”

    Published: January 24, 2010 9:31 PM

  • RWWRWW

    Above I have given a link to a thread where I debunk the looters argument of scarcity as denying IP.

    You mean the link in which you talk about cavemen setting up a wheel industry and R&D, if only that had IP protection? To be honest, I can barely type the thought out without succumbing to fits of giggles. (The only thing that makes it less funny is the deadly consequences of your brutish philosophy…)

    But, to give you credit, I think that little hypothetical snippet does qualify as a weird sort of argument.

    I have said that… I would have no argument with IP dealt with in the private sector…

    Plenty of substance…

    Are you being serious? Let me spell it out for you: Merely stating your opinion is not an argument. It is not substance. What part of that is difficult to understand?

    PS: “The looters argument”! You’re a parody of a parody.

    Published: January 24, 2010 9:42 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    Chronology. The IP is in the process that replicates the thought and the manufacture – the products of mans mind – and that comes before the product, either tangible or cyber.

    Because the IP is a-priori, the scarcity argument is irrelevant.

    Yes?

    Published: January 24, 2010 9:49 PM

  • RWWRWW

    Same thing, over and over. You say something blatantly obvious — for example, that ideas come before physical products, or that we would have nothing without the majesty of the human mind (or whatever rhetorical flourish you’d like) — and then hand-wave your way to the conclusion you like, without any actual explanation.

    Please, do fill in the details. Until then, the answer to your question is “No.”

    Published: January 24, 2010 10:00 PM

  • Silas BartaSilas Barta

    @RWW: This Hubbard fellow is making me miss Silas Barta.

    Aww, thanks! That means a lot to me.

    Just so you guys know: Even when I’m not posting, I still lurk these threads looking for the most intellectually honest people — on both sides of the issue — so I can put together an informal dialogue that will help resolve the debate and avoid the repetition that comes with each IP discussion.

    Published: January 24, 2010 10:19 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    I have given the details, though the more I think about it the simpler it is.

    One thing no one can deny, is someone had the idea (in my example, the wheel), first. And therein lay the IP. Chronology. The inception of your no-scarcity argument comes after this, but the IP is already created in the process/manufacture.

    And I would end by saying, regarding the above, of course, because man has the ability of unique, original thought, and we are debating property, the products of mans mind.

    What do you have against the ‘majesty’ of mans mind that you feel it necessary to poke fun at. Was that channeling the hive mind for a moment there?

    (Oh, for someone above, I haven’t the time to flick back through: yes, abstract verse abstraction, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the typo.)

    Published: January 24, 2010 10:28 PM

  • newsonnewson

    “You just spent your time saying nothing RWW – why so many anonymous people in here?

    howard roark’s dynamiting of cortland homes receives warm understanding from objectivists… one can’t be too careful, these days.

    Published: January 24, 2010 11:41 PM

  • Mark HubbardMark Hubbard

    Now that was rather good newson.

    Published: January 24, 2010 11:57 PM

  • Curt HowlandCurt Howland

    Mr Hubbard,

    “As I said, the best the IP Socialists can come with is this. You’ve just shot to bits the framework for a capitalist economy – ownership of property, including IP.”

    Can you explain to me how respecting private property is socialism? I was under the impression that socialism was a lack of respect of private property.

    Such as, making a law that says I cannot do this or that with something of mine.

    That’s all I.P. is. Laws that say that this information, which I bought or acquired without coercion or fraud, but not this other information (whether I know the difference or not), I am legally restrained in what I am allowed to legally do with it.

    I.P. is socialism, collective control of supposedly private property. Or maybe just Fascism, the “socialism-lite”.

    Maybe you should look up those terms before you go accusing others of promoting them.

    Published: January 25, 2010 1:50 AM

Share
{ 11 comments… add one }
  • step back January 24, 2010, 5:08 am

    Hypocrisy Hath No End

    Dear Stephan,

    With due respect, let me suggest that once again you plunge yourself into a hypocritical position.

    Mr. Martin is a sentient being.

    By your own so-called rules of “natural” rights, he owns his body and he owns his work.

    It is his work that is says Intellectual Property rights are legitimate rights even under Libertarian ideologies.

    You are verbally attacking his work product and thus you do violence to his natural rights. Aren’t Libertarians supposed to be opposed to doing violence to the works of others?

    Hypocrisy.
    It of course knows no bounds and Libertarians are not exempt.

    On a broader philosophical note, there are many creatures other than man who are sentient and occupy this planet. One would be hard put to argue for example that the great apes are not sentient when it has been shown they can be taught sign language and when this is done they express their inner sentient thoughts.

    Given this, all great apes should be considered to own their bodies and own their labors when they are born because this is just as “natural” as any human being owning his/her body/labors when they are born.

    So that means that when a human homesteader moves in on a territory previously worked upon by a great ape, that human is violating the natural property rights of the great ape. No?

    Why aren’t you and ALL Libertarians out there defending the natural rights of all apes? So many of them are locked up in zoos and not allowed to own their bodies and own their labors. Where is the philosophical consistency?

    • Andrew January 24, 2010, 6:41 am

      Well, I think there is some misunderstanding of the libertarian position concerning the concept of self-ownership. Necessity of my consent is itself based only on the fact that using of my mody by someone else empedes me (at least, potentially) to use it to my notice.

      Otherwise the concept of self ownership would inapplicable. For example, in a case someone uses my “menthal aura” to create his own exorcism, I can’t expect his request for my approval of this activity. In fact, I couldn’t even understand how it would deal with me. Or if someone investigates the method of using my body in a parallel world, it would be ridiculous to claim my ownership unless such a using affects me in this world.

      And just as is the case of using the information, even created by me. Your using it for yourself can’t (even potentially) run into contrary with any exercises of my own. That’s why it is wrong to apply the concept of self ownership to this situation.

  • Keith Lofstrom February 3, 2010, 9:12 pm

    Patents are how the aggressive and territorial B students beat up on the A students. My name is on 12 patents, 6 of them “willingly” (I did not quit when partners proposed them) and 6 applied for after I left an employer, effectively extending the “non-compete” clause in my contract from 3 years to 17. I give my best inventions, and those find work for me, while the pursuit of patents (rather than customers) killed many of the organizations I have contracted for. Patents are worse than useless – they are a distraction from the important work of trading goods and services for revenue. I suppose if I had been a Lemelson, and used aggression instead of invention, and taken money from others involuntarily, my kids would have wineries and plantations, too.

    Copyrights do not protect works, they protect revenue streams. One person who copyrighted her work was science fiction writer Zenna Henderson, who started chapters of her “the People” novels with Bible quotes. The current owner of her novels decided the Bible quotes were not commercial, and stripped them out of current editions. It is a copyright violation to print her stories the way she intended them.

    I’m still inventing good stuff, while watching my peers “invent” mediocre stuff and license it to be exclusively manufactured in China. If they keep getting upset at us, it won’t be long before the mainland Chinese write their own patents on every trivial little thing, cutting out American engineers entirely, and using our own patent and legal systems to hold us in bondage. A trillion dollar trade deficit buys a lot of patent applications, and a lot of outsourced overseas patent examiners.

    Oh well. If you do really good things for the world, they crucify you, then bury your good ideas in fantasy. If you sell out humanity, you get 30 pieces of silver.

  • step back February 5, 2010, 4:50 am

    Keith,

    It is not the evil patent system that wiped out America’s engineering core. Rather it was the M’B”A students trying to figure out how to “innovate” new cost cutting methodologies for their corporate overseers who did it. Slowly but surely they outsourced one functionality after another until there was nothing left in the hollow shell that used to be America. Long live the quarterly profit reports.

    Thank you by the way for your contributions in US patents 5,202,593 through 6,738,788.

    Imagine now a future where 99% of engineering work in the world (including for products sold in USA) is done by giant China conglomerates and there is no longer a need for engineering work in the USA. (BTW, thank you for the past, but your services are no longer needed as an engineer in the USA in such a future.)

    Suppose that in such a dark future you are working on your own or with a handful of unemployed fellow American engineers. Suppose you alone or with your rag tag army come up with an “idea” for the next great thing.

    Now if you openly publicize your idea and try to “compete” in the so-called free market, you will be crushed marketing wise and perhaps in so many other ways by the giant conglomerates. You will have zero chance of success in a patentless world.

    On the other hand, if the US government still recognizes patents in that dark future (probably they won’t because US gov’t will have been bought out anyway by foreign interest in control of UC v. FEC (SCt 2010) campaign corporations) you might still have a faint chance. Not much of a chance, but something.

    In knocking down the patent system now, you make that dark future come into being all the more quickly. Thanks.

    —————–
    P.S. US copyright law does not have a “moral rights” provision of the kind you allude to with your tale about the SciFi author. If she has, of her own free will, sold her rights to the new “owner”, what right does she (or you) have to complain about the new owner altering the book? If I sell my blue colored car to a new owner and he paints it red, what right do I have to complain? I never intended for it to be red? Such a right does not exist under USA copyright laws.

  • Stephan Kinsella February 5, 2010, 10:50 am

    Step Back, your post is too incoherent to respond to in detail, but I will note that “moral rights” is provided for in some legal systems. Just google it.

  • Keith Lofstrom February 5, 2010, 12:30 pm

    Two things – I wasted ten years doing the patent and licensing approach. It paid about 25% of what I could earn consulting and contracting per hour. Wealth is generated by productivity and trade, not by threatening to sue others.

    Zenna Henderson never sold the rights to her work. She died, and her heirs (who were not writers, and might have resented her writing) sold the rights to a third party. In an ideal world, her fans would have bought the rights from the family and kept the works intact. But neither her family, or her fans, or indeed most people understand the financial anti-artistic nature of copyright. Fandom is a diffuse and difficult-to-monitize thing; if a million people (present and future) care 10 cents each about the integrity of a work, that $100,000 cannot be practically aggregated, and cannot compete with $5,000 of concentrated commercial interest. We need to understand how things actually work, then aggregate our concern about thousands of works like Ms. Henderson’s, and change the laws so they are not antithetical to the preservation of artistic works.

    Preservation does NOT mean control, or automatically forbidding changes. It does mean allowing non-change, perhaps by mandating availability for the original version, or releasing the original version into the public domain if the copyright owner refuses to make it available.

    If you want some version of your work to survive, release it under Creative Commons (bless you, Larry Lessig!) or into the public domain. Some people will change, remix, and quote it without attribution. Others will defend the original version. If you sign your work with strong public key encryption, the authenticity of the original version can be proved practically forever. If nobody cares enough to preserve the authentic original, it dies. But in a culture with a strong commitment to open information, and few risks for doing so, there will always be someone willing to spend a fraction of a penny per century to keep unfashionable works alive – look at what Brewster Kahle is doing with Archive.org .

    But if you concern is making money – sell something that people want. If you understand what you are doing, and treat your customers right, you can out-compete the people that are copying you. If you have a sense of entitlement rather than a work ethic, the Chinese (who know how to work their butts off) will clean your clock.

  • step back February 7, 2010, 5:56 pm

    I wasted ten years doing the patent and licensing approach.

    Keith,

    Granted that the patent game is no sure fire thing. It’s a big gamble and many an inventor waste their life chasing after the holy grail only to come up a dime short and empty handed.

    But that is exactly the point of having a lottery-like patent game. Your experience is testimony to its effectiveness. If there was not the lure of some giant windfall gold strike in the unpredictable future, hardly anyone would waste their energy trying to go where no man has gone before (invention wise). After all, a bird in the hand is always worth more than two far fetched maybes in the bush.

    If you have a sense of entitlement rather than a work ethic …
    I don’t think that is a fair characterization of most, hard working inventors. It should instead be a characterization of the second line “taker”. You know. The businessman who waits in the shadows for some venturesome inventor to prove there is a profitable market in some new fangled gizmo or service, and then swoops in to take the winnings away from he who gambled in the first place. Those who oppose patents “have a sense of entitlement“; entitlement to the fruits from the first inventor’s work.

  • Keith Lofstrom February 7, 2010, 7:51 pm

    Would you breath if you could not patent it?

    I am an inventor, and I invent for the same reason that you breath, because life would be short and ugly without it. Any intelligent person invents, and with modern tools of science and communication invention is easy and common. Ideas are cheap, implementation is hard. Delivery is what a free market should reward, not typing patent applications. Businessmen do not wait in the shadows to steal your inventions. They have customers to please, and plenty of inventiveness on their own.

    To claim that I have a sense of entitlement because I oppose patents is, bluntly, a lie. You cannot read my mind. Please do not expect to change my mind by misrepresenting what I think. I add value to the world around me because that value always returns multiplied, usually in unexpected ways, sometimes long after my “contribution”. Not altruism. Rather, sharing attracts sharing. Gardens are easier to live in than war zones.

    Most of my inventions are purposely in the public domain. Some of them have been “swooped in” upon and patented by companies like Texas Instruments. It costs more money than I have to fight those thieves, even if I’ve published my ideas in trade journals, supposedly making them easily searchable prior art.

    My primary “community” is innovators, I interact with hundreds of inventors every year. Yes, some of them pursue and have patents. Far more of them have better things to do. They focus on customers and sales and improving their products, rather than writing patent applications and spending money on lawyers. Their biggest worry is the trolls that produce nothing, but are waiting for the producers to become successful and then attack in court.

    Imagine founding RIM, inventing the Blackberry, and busting your ass making it work and bringing it to customers. Then pay $612M to the typing bandits at NTP that spent their time filing pointless patent applications rather than building their own products and finding their own customers. If the thieves at NTP had never been born, the Blackberry would be on the market sooner, and serving more customers cheaper and better. Nobody in the world benefited from what NTP did. In fact, a rule of thumb for real inventors is to avoid reading patent specifications (the constitutional reason for patents), because if you do, court damages triple for the patents that you’ve read and whose claims you mistakenly thought you weren’t violating. If you are skilled enough to understand the actual legal meanings of claims , you are a patent lawyer or a judge, and probably not an inventor.

    The existence of the patent system encourages ignorance. When making money by consulting, I deal with a lot of startups. The single biggest reason these startups fail is because of secrecy and a lack of information sharing. They know they can get a RIM job from the NTPs of the world if they spend time looking at patents. Because of the effect of disclosure on the courtroom survivability of a patent the clients are applying for, they restrict disclosure to far fewer potential customers, partners, and vendors than they would otherwise. They do not encounter the unexpected, and that is what you learn from.

    I have contributed great things to the world and will contribute more, in spite of, not because of, patents. I stand on the shoulders of others, and others are welcome to stand on mine. I invent faster when I exchange information. I sell more when others are selling similar things. We create the whole market together, then differentiate into segments where each of us adds unique value. Multiple sources validate each other – no smart customer buys from a monopoly.

    Case in point: I helped found I-Cube Design Systems, which produced “non-blocking crossbar switches”. Originally designed for an entirely different (and imaginary) market, those found their way into the early internet routing switches made by Cisco and others. Much of the internet traffic in the early 90’s passed through chips I designed. Another company, Aptix, was our competitor, and spent more of their seed money on sales rather than design. Their products were too expensive, and hard to test in assembled systems, so we got most of the design wins. The market as a whole would have been much smaller if Aptix was not there with us to validate the non-blocking approach to customers. I-Cube would also have been far less successful if it wasn’t for public standards such as IEEE1149.1 . I used what I learned at I-Cube to help write another public standard, IEEE1149.4 . Which led to a few consulting clients, and to the inventions that became patent 6161213 (for reasons many do not understand). Continuous cycles of feedback and sharing.

    “step back” – what have you invented? Is any of it patented? Has any of it been in production? What was the hard part of the work – was that the patentable part? Are you talking from experience, or repeating unverified homilies? I have heard the same homilies all my life, and when I tested them, I found them to be dangerously untrue. If you have practical experience, share it. Plausible does not equal true.

    Every word in the languages I use to share my ideas are words invented by countless other individuals. They and their heirs never got a dime from me or you. They invented the words of my language for free. Those that believe the inventions of others should never be used without monetary compensation should start by not listening to the words of others, and shutting up. Many patent aficionados master the wrong half of that.

  • step back February 11, 2010, 6:06 am

    “step back” – what have you invented? Is any of it patented?
    –yes, but if I told you, I’d totally give away my identity

    I helped found I-Cube Design Systems, which produced “non-blocking crossbar switches”.
    –let’s just say I know what a crossbar is and about the complexity of switch fabric chips and let’s leave it at that

    I stand on the shoulders of others
    –we all do. I support that message

    Imagine founding RIM, inventing the Blackberry, and … Then pay $612M to the typing bandits at NTP
    –my understanding is that RIM could have negotiated for far less but chose to play total hardball

    They know they can get a RIM job from the NTPs of the world if they spend time looking at patents.
    –unfortunately that part is true. If you know about another’s patent and then you knowingly infringe/ continue to infringe and tell the patent owner, hey I dare you to sue me –well what do you want the court to do? On the other hand, many people glean much in the way of ideas from others patent even if they don’t build a close copy.

    Ideas are cheap, implementation is hard. Delivery is what a free market should reward, not typing patent applications.
    –Keith, you are indeed fortunate if ideas come so easily to you. Others struggle with coming up with new ideas. If ideas are so easy (and patents and secrecy are to be shunned) then please share with us here in the open what the next great killer application is and how to implement it. In other words, you provide the idea here and then others deliver it to the market. Win win for everybody. Wouldn’t that be true?

    I leave space here for you to fill to drop in your ideas for the next 10 killer apps in the global market place:
    1. ___________
    2. ___________
    3. ___________
    well? what are they?

  • step back February 12, 2010, 3:57 am

    4. _________
    5. _________
    6. _________
    ,,,,
    ,, because of visions softly creeping
    left their seeds while I was sleeping
    and the visions
    that were planted in my brain
    Still remain
    Within the sounds of silence,,,

    Relax
    You don’t have to drop the big ideas
    Simon and Garfunkel, they understand.
    It’s all in The sounds of silence
    {:-)

Leave a Reply

© 2012-2025 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright