Back in 1991, I did a book review of J. Neil Schulman’s The Robert Heinlein Interview and Other Heinleiniana (originally published 1990; sample). My review was posted and discussed on the “GEnie Science Fiction and Fantasy RoundTable” (I believe GEnie was one of those pre-Internet dial-up networks some of us used back in the day). I thought I had lost my review but was able to find a copy buried on my hard drive, along with some comments by Schulman and others that was on that forum. Here is my initial letter to Schulman and the review, and some of the followup commentary that appeared on the forum (with some editing).
***
From Stephan Kinsella
Friday, April 26, 1991
Neil,
I just finished reading your book, The Robert Heinlein Interview and other Heinleiniana. I enjoyed it very much. Although there are a few gripes, which will become apparent in the course of the review listed below.
I did note errata while I was reading it. [omitted]
After the errata, I list a book review below. Go ahead and distribute it, if you wish.
If you want any biographical data on me, here it is. I’m 25, graduating from law school (the LSU Law Center) on May 31. I’m going to practice corporate law in Houston, Texas, with the Jackson & Walker law firm. But first, I’m going to London (probably) for a year to get an LL.M (master’s in law) in International and Comparative Law. …
I’m a big Ayn Rand, C.S. Lewis, and Heinlein fan, as are you.
* * *
\\ERRATA\\
[omitted]
BOOK REVIEW OF THE ROBERT HEINLEIN INTERVIEW
Reviewed by Stephan Kinsella
April, 1991
As a big fan of Robert Heinlein’s works, I was happy to discover J. Neil Schulman’s paperless book, The Robert Heinlein Interview and other Heinleiniana. I downloaded it from GEnie, and was able to read it in about four two-hour sittings (this is a rough estimate). (One hint for readers of paperless books: to keep track of where I left off, I created a small ASCII file called BOOKMARK. Every time I “set the book down,” I noted the line number or page number, and opened up BOOKMARK, and wrote something like “At line 1024, file HEINLN2” to remind myself where to pick up next time.) [continue reading…]
As I noted in a previous post, this event was held Nov. 12, 2011 in Moscow. It was organized by the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, the Libertarian Party of Russia, and others. The Chairman of the ASF Steering Committee was economist Pavel Usanov, head of the Hayek Institute for Economy and Law, and Andrey Shal’nev, head of the federal committee of the Libertarian Party of Russia, was its co-chairman. I was invited to speak but could not attend in person, so my 47-minute speech “Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property” was presented remotely, with Russian subtitles. It is below, along with the original version and the English transcript plus the Russian translation, which was prepared by Maxim Tulenin, head of the Moscow branch of the Libertarian Party of Russia. Pictures from the event are here. The program with the list of speakers and topics is here (English translation).
Tulenin told me after the event:
I’m head of the Moscow branch of the Libertarian Party of Russia and I did the translation of your very consistent and convincing video lecture into Russian. Let me thank you, on behalf of the steering committee, Andrey Shal’nev and the participants for your contribution to the Forum, it was a great success with the audience, especially with the younger generation. I also tip my hat to you for the analytic case you’ve made against “intellectual property” because it has provided me with a pattern of argumentation suitable for my own Internet debates.
One of the participants in the Forum provided a brief overview of my talk (rough English translation). The Forum’s promo video excerpt, with Russian subtitles, is below, followed by the subtitled version presented at the Forum; the original version of my speech (without subtitles) follows these. The audio file is here. The English transcript is below; a Russian translation which was used for subtitles for the version presented at the Forum. The powerpoint presentation I used is also streamed below.
I was a guest today on the Peter Schiff Show (guest host Stefan Molyneux), discussing:
ObamaCare’s Next Legal Hurdle.
Stephan Kinsella, patent attorney & director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, on how ObamaCare still fails any reasonable legal test, whether anything constructive may come from the Apple/Samsung battle, and why entrepreneurs needn’t worry about their intellectual property.
At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle!
This is an interview I did a couple years ago with my friend, Dr. John McGinnis, on his radio show, “Open Mike with Dr. John McGinnis,” WRTA (Sep. 19, 2011), discussing the America Invents Act. I met John when I lived in Philadelphia in the 90s, when we were both involved with the Freeman Society of Valley Forge (FEE-related), which helped me meet Hans Sennholz and Jacob Hornberger. A former economics professor, he is now a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
This is my appearance as a Guest panelist on This Week in Law, Episode 97 (Feb. 4, 2011), entitled “God Creates. We Patent.” Brief description: “It’s a Bing trap, Internet rights, tracking data persistence, attorney motivation, abolishing IP, life patents, and more”, such as net neutrality (see: A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality).
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; here’s their FaceBook page.
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!
This is my appearance as a Guest panelist on This Week in Law, Episode 133 (Oct. 13, 2011), entitled “Beyonce, Bad Laws, and Breastaurants.” The two hosts and fellow guest panelist were all lawyers. We had a wide-ranging two-hour discussion about a variety of legal and policy matters, including a number of IP problems covering patent, copyright, trademark, and even trade secret. We also discussed the Occupy Wall Street movement, Apple’s use of IP to squelch clones and competition, copyright threats against Beyonce for her dance moves, and many others as indicated by the links on the episode’s show notes.
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; here’s their FaceBook page.
A few more backup links and points below about some of the issues discussed.
At one point we got into a discussion of Obama’s use of a signing statement to approve ACTA as an “executive agreement” (see ACTA, Executive Agreements, and the Bricker Amendment), I noted that under international law, violation by a host state of the citizen of another state gave rise to a right for the violated citizen’s home state to use military force against the host state. I remarked that one danger of internationalizing intellectual property by means of executive agreements and treaties is that it could give western nations an excuse to military force against countries that allow piracy. However, this was a bit of an overstatement since, as I explain in International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (see this excerpt), this type of “gunboat diplomacy” is ostensibly no longer permitted since the founding of the UN in 1945: “Today, some investors hailing from militarily and politically powerful States might favor the threat or use of force to obtain restitution or compensation for expropriated property. Such an option is no longer available, however, due to fundamental changes in international law and politics. In particular, the United Nations Charter has since 1945 prohibited the use of force to resolve disputes, except in the case of self-defence. Today, it is generally accepted that a State may not use force against another State in response to a taking of the property of one of its nationals.”
The quote I mentioned about the problem with making law by legislation is by James Carter, who wrote, in 1884, in opposing the attempt to codify New York’s common law:
At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle!
I mentioned the tension between antitrust and patent/copyright law; more discussion of this issue can be found in endnote 1 here;
I was reminded recently of the excellent Canadian libertarian podcast Ed and Ethan: The Voice of Liberty in Canada when they were guest co-hosts on a recent episode of the superb Freedom Feens radio show. And that I had been a guest about a year ago. Here is my November 2012 appearance on their show, which I think was a very good and concise IP discussion. My segment is podcast here, which starts at aboot 57 minutes into the full episode, which is also linked below. The audio quality is very good on this one. I have to say—sometimes I give good podcast. And this was one of those times.
This was my talk delivered at the Open Science Summit, Mountain View, CA (Oct. 22, 2011), held at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. My panel’s topic was “The Future (the End?) of ‘Intellectual Property.'” My talk, “IP and the New Mercantilism,” is first, and lasts about the first 19 minutes. The slideshow I used (but did not show the audience) is also below.
My original title was “IP and the New Mercantilism,” but I think a better title is “Property and Science: The Twin Pillars of Prosperity and Civilization—Versus Patent and Copyright.”
Grok shownotes
In this lecture delivered at the Open Science Summit 2011, titled “The Future: The End of Intellectual Property,” libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella argues that intellectual property (IP) laws, specifically patents and copyrights, are state-enforced monopolies that undermine property rights, science, and innovation (0:00-5:00). Kinsella, grounded in Austrian economics, explains that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources, not non-scarce ideas, using examples like a patented mousetrap to illustrate how IP restricts individuals from using their own property (5:01-15:00). He critiques IP’s historical roots in mercantilism, such as the monopolies granted by the English crown in the 1500s, and its modern harms, like stifling research and locking up cultural works, arguing that IP creates artificial scarcity in a world where knowledge should be abundant (15:01-25:00). Kinsella’s lecture positions IP as a mercantilist relic that hampers scientific and economic progress.
Kinsella debunks the utilitarian claim that IP incentivizes innovation, citing how patents distort R&D by steering it toward trivial inventions and how copyrights limit the dissemination of ideas, contrasting this with IP-free models like open-source software (25:01-35:00). He draws parallels between historical mercantilist practices—such as monopolies on goods like playing cards—and modern IP enforcement, including warrantless searches and industry shakedowns, framing IP as a tool for corporate rent-seeking (35:01-45:00). In the conclusion, Kinsella calls for the complete abolition of IP, arguing that it is antithetical to property rights and science, and directs listeners to his resources at c4sif.org for further exploration (45:01-47:26). The lecture is a concise yet powerful libertarian critique, ideal for those interested in open science and the future of innovation without IP.
Update: The transcript of my talk is here and below.
If the video embed below does not work, the video of the lecture may be found here.
Grok Detailed Summary
Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block
[Time markers may be inaccurate Grok estimates]
Summaries
Overview
Stephan Kinsella’s KOL101 podcast, recorded at the Open Science Summit 2011, is a lecture titled “The Future: The End of Intellectual Property.” As a libertarian patent attorney and Austrian economics adherent, Kinsella argues that IP laws—patents and copyrights—are state-enforced monopolies that violate property rights, impede science, and stifle innovation. The 47-minute lecture critiques IP’s philosophical, historical, and practical flaws, advocating for its abolition to foster a free market of ideas and open science. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for approximately 5-15 minute blocks, based on the provided transcript.
Key Themes with Time Markers
Introduction and Austrian Economics (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces his anti-IP stance, grounding it in Austrian economics and the concept of scarcity.
Property Rights and Scarcity (5:01-15:00): Argues property rights apply to scarce resources, not ideas, showing IP’s conflict with libertarianism.
Historical Roots and Mercantilism (15:01-25:00): Traces IP to mercantilist monopolies, critiquing its role in creating artificial scarcity.
Economic and Scientific Harms (25:01-35:00): Details IP’s distortion of R&D and cultural access, contrasting with IP-free innovation.
Modern Mercantilism and Enforcement (35:01-45:00): Compares IP to historical mercantilism, highlighting corporate rent-seeking and enforcement abuses.
Conclusion and Call for Abolition (45:01-47:26): Urges IP’s abolition, directing listeners to resources for further anti-IP arguments.
Block-by-Block Summaries
0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Austrian Economics) Description: Kinsella opens at the Open Science Summit, thanking host Joseph and introducing himself as a libertarian patent attorney and Austrian economics adherent (0:00-2:00). He explains the Austrian school’s free-market, non-positivist methodology, linking it to the lecture’s focus on IP’s incompatibility with science and property rights (2:01-5:00). Summary: The block sets the stage, framing Kinsella’s anti-IP stance within Austrian economics and the lecture’s relevance to open science.
5:01-10:00 (Property Rights and Scarcity) Description: Kinsella contrasts the mythical “land of Cockaigne,” where scarcity is absent, with the real world, where scarce, rivalrous resources require property rights to avoid conflict (5:01-7:30). He introduces causality and knowledge as twin pillars of prosperity, arguing that IP wrongly assigns property rights to non-scarce ideas (7:31-10:00). Summary: The libertarian property framework is established, highlighting IP’s conflict with natural rights by restricting non-scarce knowledge.
10:01-15:00 (IP’s Violation of Rights) Description: Kinsella uses Mises’ praxeology to frame human action, where scarce means achieve ends, guided by non-scarce knowledge (10:01-12:30). He illustrates with a patented mousetrap, showing how IP prevents owners from using their property, violating rights and undermining science (12:31-15:00). Summary: IP’s role as a state-enforced restriction on property rights is detailed, emphasizing its anti-scientific and anti-libertarian nature.
15:01-20:00 (Historical Roots) Description: Kinsella traces IP to mercantilist practices in the 1500s, where English monarchs granted monopolies on goods like playing cards for revenue, not innovation (15:01-17:45). He links this to modern IP, arguing it creates artificial scarcity to protect monopolists, not inventors (17:46-20:00). Summary: IP’s mercantilist origins are explored, showing its roots in state privilege rather than market-driven property rights.
20:01-25:00 (Mercantilism and Scarcity) Description: Kinsella critiques IP’s attempt to make non-scarce ideas scarce, contrasting this with the free market’s goal of overcoming scarcity through abundance (20:01-22:30). He argues that knowledge accumulation is essential for progress, and IP hampers this by restricting learning (22:31-25:00). Summary: IP’s creation of artificial scarcity is critiqued, highlighting its conflict with the market’s purpose and scientific advancement.
25:01-30:00 (Economic Harms) Description: Kinsella details IP’s economic harms, like patents distorting R&D toward trivial gizmos (e.g., a musical condom) while abstract ideas remain unpatentable (25:01-27:30). He notes copyrights locking up works, limiting cultural dissemination (27:31-30:00). Summary: IP’s distortion of research and restriction of cultural access are outlined, showing its economic and scientific costs.
30:01-35:00 (Scientific and Cultural Impacts) Description: Kinsella argues that patents stigmatize emulation, calling it “stealing” or “piracy,” despite being essential learning (30:01-32:30). He critiques copyrights for creating a restrictive publishing model, contrasting this with IP-free models like open-source software (32:31-35:00). Summary: IP’s negative impact on science and culture is explored, advocating for open models that foster innovation and access.
35:01-40:00 (Modern Mercantilism) Description: Kinsella compares modern IP to mercantilism, citing historical examples like French fabric design enforcement and modern practices like warrantless searches for copyright infringement (35:01-37:45). He notes corporate shakedowns via royalties, akin to mercantilist tax collection (37:46-40:00). Summary: IP’s parallels to mercantilist monopolies are drawn, highlighting its role in corporate rent-seeking and state enforcement.
40:01-45:00 (Corporate Rent-Seeking) Description: Kinsella critiques industries like software, music, and pharmaceuticals for using IP to accrue monopoly profits, citing Microsoft’s patent lawsuits as “royalty” shakedowns (40:01-42:30). He notes how these profits fuel campaign contributions, perpetuating IP’s entrenchment (42:31-45:00). Summary: IP’s role in enabling corporate monopolies and political influence is detailed, framing it as modern mercantilism.
45:01-47:26 (Conclusion and Call for Abolition) Description: Kinsella argues that IP is not a property right but a mercantilist cover, urging its abolition as antithetical to science and property rights (45:01-46:30). He directs listeners to c4sif.org for more anti-IP resources and mentions his copyright-free Libertarian Papers journal (46:31-47:26). Summary: The lecture concludes with a call to end IP, promoting a free market of ideas and open science, with resources for further study.
This summary provides a concise yet comprehensive overview of Kinsella’s KOL101 lecture at the Open Science Summit 2011, suitable for show notes, with time markers for easy reference and block summaries capturing the progression of his argument. The provided transcript was used to ensure accuracy, supplemented by general knowledge of Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and the Open Science Summit’s context from search results. Time markers are estimated based on the transcript’s structure and the 47-minute duration, as the audio was not directly accessible.
In fact a good deal of the Opening Session of the 2010 Open Science Summit was devoted to IP horror stories and ways in which it interferes with science and the spread of knowledge (go to about 8:20 for the beginning of this discussion).
For a related talk, see “Science is a Private Good – Or: Why Government Science is Wasteful”
Thanks Joseph. I am very happy to be here. I am a patent attorney. I am also a libertarian and an adherent to the Austrian school of economics. Good. So some people know.. can you elaborate? The Austrian school of economics is a radical free market school that is not positivist in methodology like the Kossians or Milton Friedman type school. I am bringing that up because there is a methodology of science that is applicable to the natural sciences and the topic of today. So.
Some of you may have heard of the land of Cockaigne – the land of milk and honey. The poets in the middle ages came up with a mythical land where everyone has everything satisfied and there is no scarcity. We do not live in this world. There is scarcity – you can’t just have what you wish for. There is no magic here. This gives rise to two key features. There is scarcity and causality. Only one person can use a resource at a time, they are rivals – as economists call it. In order to achieve results in this world, we have to use these scarce thinsg in the world as means of action. And the choices that we make have to confirm with causal laws. You decide on an action, and you choose a scarce resource, and you choose a casually avocatious means to cause your action. There are two twin powers of human power and prosterity. Knowledge and property.
In a systematic way, knowledge is science. Science is the systematic categorization and acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge and property go hand in hand. They are twin pillars of human propserity. We have to have property rules to permit the productive use of scarce resources. This is why we have property rules that assign an owner to every possible scarce resuorce. Science is necessary to provide information about causal laws so that individual human actors know how to employ laws to achieve ends. This is a p… primary austrain economist. The logic of action, the study of human action. Employing means to achieve ends, and the means are scarce.
So in a free and civilized society, property rights are respected and individuals are free to learn from the body of knowledge and are free to add to it. This is a free society where property rights permit resources to be used productively without conflict. And science informs men how to use these resources, and this knowledge expands our ability to achieve ends and expands our ability to see what ends are even possible.
Now, science and learning in general – the acqusition of knowledge – has many forms. Just living, observation, cultural emmersion, informal teaching by parents, imitation, formal education, employment working at a job you learn things, and the scientific method and emprical testing. Entrepreneurs invest in research and development and bring desired products to market. Consumers and competitors learn from these products, they leanr how they are made. And competitors emulate and improve maybe on the products.
Patents and copyright short-circuit this process. I said I was a patent attorney. I know that this makes me less appreciated, but I hate patents the most out of all of you. They are just grants by the state for a monopoly privledge designed to protect companies from competition. The holder can use the state force against an innocent or peaceful competitor from using the information to compete. They are based on the confused notion that it is wrong to use information or to learn in some context. It’s trying to assign property rights on information, patterns and designs. But the purpose of property is conflict over scarce resources. But ideas and knowledge can be used over and over and over, and they are not scarce.
So when the law tries to impose this on ideas, it’s trying to make ideas scarce when it’s not scarce. We need the concept of property, but the free market is trying to create abundance despite this. So the purpose of the market is to overcome the scarcity. More knowledge is good. The more knowledge we have, the better we are. This accumulation is essential to progress. We shouldn’t treat it as scarce.
This is the fundamental problem with intellectual property like copyright and patent law. The fact is, it’s literally impossible to have property rights in knowledge. So what the law ends up doing is that it, goes under the guise of protecting property rights and knowledge, it gives property rights to things that are scarce. Copyright gives you a right to take some of my money if I do something. It does not permit me to use my printing press as I see fit, it’s just to extract money from someone in the form of damages or use state force in the form of an injunction under penalty of being contempt in court and fines and jail.
Someone who has a patent on a mouse trap, even if he gets it later, can stop me from selling my mouse trap idea or mouse traps. Patent and copyright undermine and undercut science. Patents distort R&D by steering it away from heavily patented areas. It pushes research and development towards more practical gizmos because abstract ideas are not as easily patentable. For instance, physics equations are not, but a musical condom is. Patents even prevent the use of knowledge even if you independently invent an idea.
It also stigmatizes the idea of emulation and copying- or in the real world we call this learning- adn this is why we have words like stealing and privacy applying to learning, competing, and education. These are a type of evocation. Stealing means I take something from you, and you no longer have it. That’s bad, that’s why we impose it. Piracy- real pirates would attack people and kill them and sink their boats. But the terms used now for merely copying information and competing..?
Copyright is bad too. It locks up written works. Tons of works are being lost because it prohibits the dessimination of ideas. It creates a culture of a publishing model where important works, journals and books are `limited`. You have to go through this model because you have no choice instead of cutting out the middle man.
The title of my talk was IP and the new mercentalism. It had its peak in the late 1500s. It was the policy of the crown by granting industries certain monopolies. In England in the 1500, many goods were covered by patents like playing cards, books and wine and so on. Not because anyone invented it, but because the crown was granting favors for someone sometimes in exchange for agreeing to collect taxes for the state. It caused the monopolists and private companies to turn to the government to perform search and seizures and others going outside the monopoly. Did the other shops have the king’s stamps?
In France, 1666- cloth button wearers were investigated. People were tortured and executed for pirating fabric designs. Some merchants collected taxes in exchange for.. ilike the wooly. We have the warrantless searches for CD and DVD counterfeiting.. courts seize domain names without due process. Time Warner Cable, Comcast and others are agreeing to copyright infringement cases. Obama and others have been cooperating with Hollywood and others to dissrupt internet access to people suspected to violate copyright law.
And the tax issues.. we have the software, music, and pharmaceutical industries accruing monopoly profits and the forms of royalties and shakedowns of people using trademark, patent and copyright law. By decreased competition they gain this monopoly and more money. So then this turns into campaign contributions or taxes. So Microsoft uses its money to acquire more patents and then uses that money to sue other companies and then to shake them down for royalty payments. It’s called royalties for a reason! It’s no surprise that Stodden mentioned that the law wwas fought back by copyright lobbyists.
As the state, basically- it’s nothing but mercentalisism byut so called property rights are used as a cover. Patent and copyright were not called property until recently. People resisted these monopolies because they knew there was something wrong. This is why they are only allowed for a limited time, so that the state could encourage innovation – but there’s proof that this actually hampers innovation. The advocates started to cover this property rights.. and hey who is going to be against property?
Someone the other day on some podcast said that children are like Hitler. If you bring up these terms in an argument, then nobody can argue against it. Who’s against protecting property? Or the no child left behind act. They put these nice terms on these laws to make it hard to oppose them. A lot of the opponents of intellectual property are proponents of property.. pro-free-market, pro property position is where we’re coming from.
The patent system isn’t broken. It’s doing what it’s intended to be doing. Patent reform? The latest was not significant at all. The problem is not software patents. The problem is not corporate patents. It’s not that the patent term is too long. We have to recognize that patent and copyright are completely antithetical to property right purposes and science. It impedes science and property.
Intellectual property prevents owners from using property as they see fit. And it intentionally stops learning. Don’t reform patent law: end it. If you want more information abuot this, I was going to post to c4sif.org.. there’s more information there, more systematic information elaborating on the ideas that I talked about today. I founded the Liberatarian Papers journal. It’s completely free and open to the public and has no copyright restrictions whatsoever.
This is my speech at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (Sept. 22, 2013, Bodrum, Turkey). The video and slides are below. See also the Q&A panel [PFP117], which contains several interchanges between me and Sean Gabb about this issue. See also Sean Gabb’s article Stephan Kinsella on Limited Liability (2013), Reported by Sean Gabb (Oct. 6, 2013), to which I intend to reply at a later time.
The video(s) are below. Interesting factoid: I was set to do the show, using Justin.tv, but for some reason neither of my MacBooks would work with the Justin.tv interface. I saw an option for “mobile device.” It was 5 minutes to showtime. I quickly downloaded Justin.tv app on my iphone, got out a little iPod tripod I had never used, signed in, hit the record button, and voilá–I was on Justin.tv streaming live, using my iphone. I was using my MacBook to watch it live, and to monitor questions typed on a facebook stream by the 45 or so participants. Quite amazing. (There are three videos b/c I had a couple of glitches/crashes and had to re-start my iPhone stream twice.)
[Update: the original videos seem to be lost because everyone in this space is a half-assed bozo. I should have downloaded them at the time. Lesson learned.]
Topics discussed: Austrian economics, intellectual property law, escaping the USA
0:00 Andrew leads off the show, live from Bangkok. He discusses the end of the government shutdown – and how to avoid the next, even more draconian version the US government has up its sleeve. Plus, he shares why the rest of the world doesn’t and shouldn’t care about shenanigans in the US.
Andrew discusses how you are not a product of the borders you’re born within; you can define yourself as an individual, not as a government slave. He talks about the upcomingPassport to Freedom event
Anarcho-capitalist, liberty activist, and intellectual property lawyer Stephan Kinsella discusses why he believes intellectual property law is a sham and nothing more than crony capitalism. He shares his Austrian economics ideals and how he believes they can be better implemented in the USSA. Plus, Stephan and Andrew discuss why Shark Tank is the best show on television, and Stephan explains why he won’t be leaving his native Houston to live overseas any time soon. He and Andrew debate the merits of living overseas with a family and perpetual travel.
Recent Comments