StephanKinsella.com

I was a guest on The Medical Freedom Report Podcast, with host Michael Ostrolenk, earlier this month; it was just been podcast. See below.

[see KOL065 | Guest on The Medical Freedom Report, with Michael Ostrolenk: Patents on Medical Technology and Pharmaceuticals (Feb. 24, 2011)]

Patents & Copyrights: intellectual property rights or monopoly control of ideas?

[27:03] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Why are medical devices protected by patent law while medical procedures are exempt? And what about the government’s use of compulsory licenses to force pharmaceutical companies to produce certain drugs like CIPRO. These are two medical-related examples in a long list of arcane exceptions and arbitrary details written in to intellectual property (IP) law. It is commonly believed that IP rights, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks are necessary to foster innovation and protect the interests of the people and companies that create new products and ideas. Patent attorney Stephan Kinsella of the Mises Institute, holds an opposite view, and in this podcast with Michael Ostrolenk, discusses the growing movement that views IP law as not only anti-competitive and a barrier to innovation, but also as incompatible with true property rights. Michael and Stephan also talk about the evolution of IP from laws like the 1709 Statute of Queen Ann, an attempt by the monarchy to control the output of book printers, the influence of which carried into the copyright and patent provisions in the U.S. Constitution.

I was a guest on the Feb. 15, 2011 episode of Thinking Liberty, “an interactive libertarian anarchist talk program.” We talked for quite a while about IP; the hosts asked very intelligent questions. (My segment is from about 25:00 to 1:16:00.) (local MP3 file) (KOL Podcast version)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (10.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

My article, Rethinking IP, was published yesterday on Mises Daily. It details the content and purpose of my upcoming Mises Academy course, “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics,” Mises Academy (March 22, 2011 – April 29, 2011).

This is a 6-week course and will run starting March 22, 2011 (on Tuesday evenings, 9pm EST) and will provide an overview of current intellectual property law and the history and origins of IP. This is the second time I’ve offered this course (the first offering, during Fall 2010, being very successful), and my third Mises Academy course (I am currently teaching Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society). Click here to read my reflections on teaching the Rethinking IP class the first time.

Here is some feedback provided by past students of this course:

“The class (everything) was perfect. Content wasn’t too deep (nor too shallow) – the reviewed material was just brilliant and the “tuning” was great for someone like myself (engineering background – no profound legal/lawyer experience). It provided all the material to really “understand” (instead of “just knowing”) all that was covered which I find always very important in a class.”

“Instruction was very comprehensive and thought provoking. The instructor was fantastic and very knowledgeable and answered every question asked.”

“Learned more then i expected, the professor seemed to really enjoy teaching the class, and the readings provided were excellent. Overall for the cost I was extremely satisfied.”

“Very interesting ideas I was not exposed to. Inexpensive, convenient, good quality.”

“It is a very fascinating topic and I was quite eager to learn about what I.P. is all about. I thought that Professor Kinsella was able to convey complicated issues to us clearly.”

“Professor Kinsella’s enthusiasm and extra links posted showed his true knowledge and interest in the subject. Great to see.”

As noted, live online lectures will be Tuesdays at 9pm EST, with Office Hours later in the week, probably at 7pm London time.

Sign up!

http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawliberty/symposia/index.htm

I’ll be a panelist on the “Intellectual Property Law and Policy” panel of Symposium: “Plain Meaning in Context: Can Law Survive its Own Language?”, being put on by New York University School of Law/Journal of Law and Liberty (February 18, 2011). Details below:

[continue reading…]

Yesterday I was a Guest panelist on Denise Howell’s This Week in Law, Episode 97, entitled “God Creates. We Patent.” TWiL is part of Leo Laporte’s impressive and growing private TWiT (This Week in Tech) netcast network (I regularly listen to the TWiT network’s This Week in Tech, MacBreak Weekly, and TWiL, in addition to my some of my other favorite podcasts, such as Mises podcasts, Lew Rockwell, and the Slate Culture Gabfest and Slate Political Gabfest.)

In addition to Howell and me, there were two other IP/tech lawyers. We had a very civil and wide-ranging discussion of a number of topics, from the Google vs. Bing “search cheating” dispute, Internet access rights as “human rights,” abolishing IP and gene patents, defensive patent publishing, lawyers as vigorous representatives of their clients’ interests, and more (most of the topics we discussed are linked on Howell’s Delicious bookmarks page for that episode).

I already knew Howell was a very good host, having seen the show before, but I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at how tolerant and even libertarian-leaning the other lawyers were of my very radical anti-state, anti-IP views. We had a very good conversation and the other panelists were very receptive to my outspoken libertarian stance. Maybe there is hope!

The video is below; it’s also on the TWiL page for this episode; you can also subscribe to the audio or video podcast for this show. (podcast at KOL104)

[Mises crosspost]
Update: For more information on this topic, see my post Net Neutrality Developments.

Dr. Obama: Heal Thyself!

I had an exchange on the C4SS site on Thomas Knapp’s post The Thin Black Line:

Kinsella:

State chartering of corporations should of course be abolished but I’ve yet to see a careful argument that explains on libertarian grounds why passive shareholders/investors of a contractual firm ought to be vicariously responsible for torts committed by employes of that firm. Most argument I see just assume this liability, based on some kind of very broad implicit theory of causation, one so broad that it would make employees, vendors, creditors, even customers all vicariously responsible for those torts. And a lot of the arguments I see are confused about what limited liabiilty is–they think it has to do with the managers, not the shareholdres. THey also often assume that a shareholder is necessarily an investor–this is not true; if you buy your share from another shareholder, you pay him, not the company. Anyway, if giving them money is enough to make you vicariously liable, lenders, customers, employees, vendors all aid and abet the firm too. If voting to elect directors is enough, then banks, unions, big customers, etc., also influence the makeup of the board. There is just no careful theory that I’ve seen.

Knapp:

Stephan,

You write: “State chartering of corporations should of course be abolished but I’ve yet to see a careful argument that explains on libertarian grounds why passive shareholders/investors of a contractual firm ought to be vicariously responsible for torts committed by employes of that firm.”

Why is such an argument necessary? Usually an argument for Claim X is only necessary when someone has made Claim X. [continue reading…]

ignroe me.
her is file

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (10.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS