Libertarian writer and patent attorney Stephen Kinsella has written a critique of Prof. Mossoff's Trespass Fallacy paper. LINK. Libertarian thought on intellectual property is somewhat unsettled. Kinsella is one of the thought leaders of the modern anti-patent libertarians while Mossoff represents the pro-patent side.
One of Kinsella's basic arguments stems from the traditional libertarian support for individual liberties and strong private property rights. When some third party holds a patent, that patent limits what I can do with my scarce private property as well as my individual freedoms.
Purple is my idea of the RED ATOM BOMB!
OK so don’t print that last poem. but not only did he decide my Fate with his buddies from Tennessee. but he also decided if i was going to get help he was in charge. Now I know that’s not 18 USC 2091? Anyone got any answers?
Sounds like Sesame Street Barney, Ted, Ed, HRB.
To Mass to Mass to speak to the PIG,
Who only would let me speak,
To ones like him I now have Figged,
are now about to reep.
He then lets go of the connection to Mass,
To hide the path in the Map,
And then he comes down to keep him again,
To decide she don’t even get the Flap.
They pay them so handsome. They think I’m a Dunce.
They all drive me to drink.
But now that I have the guide to the Map.
Their all going to wish they did think!
So if he wasn’t there, and he let another sit in, then it was done there before he got it back. But obviously he knew it had been done that is why he wouldn’t let go or send the Documents that were now under Statute 18 USC 2091. That’s why he’s leaving town. And I suppose he will be too, or worse!
Probably all those terrible things done to me, belong to them two!
* Or I didn’t get them at all!
Someone told me once that MY CASE (without my knowledge, input or consent)had already been decided.
Did he know I was never given copies of the Documents?
Did he know that the Lawyer wouldn’t acknowledge that he was fired or give the documents to me, and that I had to go get them myself?
Did he know what I didn’t?… That I had 18 USC 2091.
If he knew that, then he knew obviously betwwen there and here all were being removed before I got them.
Wrong.
I CAN make the chair.
I just have to get a license to do so.
I can pay for the license OR, as I suggested, I can cross license my patented chair to the owners of the stool patent. They get permission to make the chair and I get permission to make things that include the stool. Since my chair is an improvement on the stool, I get them to pay me money in addition to granting me permission to use the stool.
“We are opposed to aggression, so of cousre we opose the state.”
Please tell me who is going to enFORCE all of the contracts you make with your “freedom of contract” if the other parties decide not to honor their obligations under the contracts. Because it seems to me that you’re all in favor of state enforcement, or aggression as you call it, when the agreement that is being enforced is one of your private agreements, but not so much when it’s an agreement between other parties, e.g. an agreement between the state and a patent owner that a patent owner will be given exclusive rights in exchange for disclosure. You may not like that the state has, on your behalf so to speak, entered into that contract, but your position appears to be that the state, as a representative of the people, doesn’t have the same “freedom of contract” that the people have. I find that position puzzling.
I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m genuinely interested in your answer.
Who was that shouting lun atic? Gates or the CEO of Big Blue?
Useful Arts was intended to change its meaning, or were the Arts intended to change with progress?
“ideas = scarce resources” – yah, just take a look at Hollywood…
“Also, to the extent your action is reducing the value of my scarce resource equivalent (in essense, taking these scarce resources from me), why should that be permitted? You wouldn’t permit me to dump toxic chemicals on your property (i.e., scarce resource) — why should you be able to do the market-recognized equivalent to a scarce resource?
Are you saying that the free market is wrong?”
I don’t think that’s how they look at it. I think that they would in fact say that an owner of property could dump toxic chemicals on his own property. To be “true” to their logic, society must give way to the ultimate full liberty of the individual. The reality that this just cannot be done and have a functioning society simply does not matter.
As long as the libertian philosophy inhabits fantasy land, justice and free market are completely malleable concepts that need not reflect the reality of actual human nature.
“Clearly, the discussion is not about what is real or what is the current state of law.”
Well, at least you seem to realize that you are talking about an idealized and unreal setting. The next step is to realize that basic human nature would have to be nullified in order to actually apply your philosophy. Don’t you think your energies would be better spent on contemplating philosophies that have a chance at implementation rather than (pipe)dreaming your life away?
“Same with your portrayal of damage due to market value. That is an abstraction based on less than personal ownership of all sticks in the bundle, and just reflects an effort to expand control beyond what one truly owns.”
If you Libertarians believe in the “free market,” then you should believe in what the market tells you. The market places the abstract concept of “value” on just about everything. Moreover, you can translate that value to your precious “scarce resources” anytime you want. If the market is saying “ideas = scarce resources,” why are you ignoring it?
Also, to the extent your action is reducing the value of my scarce resource equivalent (in essense, taking these scarce resources from me), why should that be permitted? You wouldn’t permit me to dump toxic chemicals on your property (i.e., scarce resource) — why should you be able to do the market-recognized equivalent to a scarce resource?
Are you saying that the free market is wrong?
Ned,
As posted by IAGTLDNGBWNT, both of your reasons are grounded in fallacy. And this too is not something new (I have addressed both of these fallacies in the past); so we peel back the onion one more layer and ask why you believe in these fallacies as a reason to pursue your agenda?
“The problem with both your resonating argument and your zoning argument is that both require me to sacrifice a few sticks out of my bundle of property rights, in direct contradiction of the libertian philosophy.”
Sorry … that that’s price of being in a civilization. As I said, freedom isn’t free. Moreover, there is no such thing as absolute freedom — which is the apparent Libertarian goal.
Every law on the books in some way causes you to sacrifice a few sticks out of your bundle of rights. That’s just the cost of doing business. I am comfortable with this system as are the vast majority of other people.
Same with your portrayal of damage due to market value. That is an abstraction based on less than personal ownership of all sticks in the bundle, and just reflects an effort to expand control beyond what one truly owns.
The problem with both your resonating argument and your zoning argument is that both require me to sacrifice a few sticks out of my bundle of property rights, in direct contradiction of the libertian philosophy. While both may be “true” in the sense of what is real and what is the law now, both would be changed if full individual liberty were to be achieved. Thus, both arguments are nullified. Clearly, the discussion is not about what is real or what is the current state of law.
He should worry. He’s been hoodqwinked by the one he is shilling for.
Ned: “Anon, would that we had a simple, clear definition of BMPs. If so, I think Bilski would have banned them.”
And then what’s next?
Create a definition of medical methods and ban them too?
Software methods next?
Nice way to chop away at the independent status of the process category. But you still have not given a reason why it should be done.
Refreshing. Thanks Ned.
“We already know that this business is way too complex for you, suckie.”
Yeah, way too complex to know the difference between a composition and a manufacture.
“Prometheus was much closer to my “art field” than Myriad, suckie, and I was very clear there that it didn’t matter whether they went down under 101 or 103. That’s because the rationale for tanking the claims is identical regardless of which method is used.”
Yes you were very clear that it didn’t matter and thanks yet again for a lovely 9-0 self defeat because it was unanimous that the Court very much thought it mattered whether it went down under 101 or 103.
What a chump.
Mr. Kinsella:
It’s all always about ownership of scarce resources.
Your argument rests on a foundation of preferences, and assertions, that’s all. It is lopsided. It is merely your assertion that ideas cannot be protected. Why? Because you say so. Apparently it has something to do with scarce (rivalrous) resources. Of course, we live in a finite world and therefore some resources will be rivalrous. So what? You’ve chosen a definition with which to try to hammer the world, including its humans, into conformity. I’m sure you will remember enough mathematics to have seen the following sort of incomplete definition: For all points, except at x = a. My definition agrees with yours…except in the case of x = IP. In that case, IP is precisely property. Thus I’ve have demolished half your program.
But in any case we all know that it not the ideas that are protected. You and I and everyone on the block may have the same ideas and there is nothing anyone can do about it; there is no protection of ideas. Rather it is the manifestation of the ideas in some tangible form that supports IP protection. But let’s just call these “ideas” for the sake of discussion.
Your point is, despite your denial, not that ideas can’t be protected (of course, you’re incorrect…go check a law book), but that they should not be. And why not? Your argument, and here it attains its most lopsided quality, is that someone who is prevented from practicing a patented invention without license from the patent owner, is being prevented from using his own property. And that’s baaaaaad.
But your bias against the creator of ideas in favor of the owner of the tangible property required to implement them without permission stems merely from your inability to find a definition of property that encompasses “ideas”. That’s it. A mere triviality. So I gave you one. Now IP is actually property. And if “ideas” are property, then they pre-existed the tangibile property you neverthless hold paramount. Problem solved.
Why do you countenance the theft of my “ideas” merely because you’re property enables you to do so? I assume you are not opposed to laws prohibiting the use of your hammer against my windshield without my permission. Presumably you will argue that a tort or trespass has been committed. Again, this is just due to the recognition that property is involved. So to ease your discomfort, simply go back to my definition of property, and problem solved.
What your analysis fails to identify is that it is morally WRONG to steal someones ideas. It is baaaaaad. Period.
That’s why it is WRONG to photograph my plans and implement them without my permission merely because you own the camera and the manufacturing capacity to build a device according to my written description.
That’s why it is WRONG to plagiarize.
That’s why it’s wrong for you to affix my trademark to my invention and to claim them both as yours. That’s why it’s wrong to claim my “ideas” as yours and to implement them merely because you have the capability to do so. It’s just WRONG. It is theft, and most humans who are not steeped in intellectual con games understand this.
Not as good as the other German representation, but still worth a look:
link to youtube.com
“As I just explained, just b/c you innovate does not mean your innovation does not also infringe someone’s patent.”
Non-sequitur. This is not an argument. If you understood patent law, you would know that and not try to kick up dust with it.
Your posts at 5:08 AND 7:14 PM are not arguments. It does not address the fact that you get sued for copying and not for innovation.
Try again.
The problem you are not addressing is that this copying and “fair is fair” disincentivizes the effort of innovation, and places other market factors in control – market factors such as wealtha nd size of market – you ignore the resultant absolute free market pitfalls and pretend that they dont exist. Didn’t you study the robber barrons in school?
Let me guess, public school?
“Our FF authorized patents for the useful Arts, not for methods of determining abstract concepts. There is a difference.”
Great. That’s both a wonderful non-sequitur (no one is talking about abstract concepts) and totally misses the point that you don’t understand what the useful arts are (as well as illustrate the incorrect time reference – useful arts are not locked into the time of the forefathers). For the time aspect, once again go back and read Risch’s article to see that business methods have been acceptible throughout the country’s history.
Further, patent eligible material was never meant to be locked into the forefathers timeframe as that would have been self-defeating for the very concept of innovation. The Courts have always understood this. Congress has always written the law to reflect this.
“describe how to make and use”
Again, with this canard? This example was refuted on a previous blog thread and there is no reason to revisit it again.
For something not having a clear definition, you are all too eager to bar all of them at the front gate.
A bit too eager. What’s in it for you?
Lols as the shiller Ned is wondering about someone else’s shilling connections.
You get sued for making, using, selling, or importing a device that infringes on another’s patent. As I just explained, just b/c you innovate does not mean your innovation does not also infringe someone’s patent. In fact since all innovation, and I mean all innovation, builds on and borrows from previous ideas, then only that innovation which builds on stuff more than 17 years old, is free from suit. If you take into account anything that has arisen in the last 17 years, it’s possible for your innovation to be infringing, as well as to qualify for its own patent protection.
I realize that this is arcane, and nonspecialists have a hard time grokking all this. However, this is more reason to be cautious in pontificating about complicated matters you do not undersatnd, and even more reason to be humble and cautious before talking about serious policy matters that depend on a correct understanding of the law that you think you understand and think that you are in favor of.
Further: what is wrong wiht copying? Suppose you widen the aisles in your grocery store to attract customers. Suppose you offer computer support service with your computer sales? Now if these things are popular with customers, you make a profit–and the profit you make attracts competitors like chum in the water attracts sharks. That is the way the free market is supposed to work: you do something that is unexpected, and thus you make an above-interest-rate level of “profit”–and remember, profit is a temporary aberration that is supposed to be driven back down towards the natural interest rate, after competition is attracted. When this happens, vendors, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, innovators, etc., have to keep improving the product or service offered to consumers, to keep revving up their profit margins. This is the way the market works. Thsi is exaclty why the patent monopoly, specifically designed to protect people from competition, bogs down the free market dynamic competition/allocation process. It is a slower version of mercantilism or protectionism. It is like pouring molasses all over the economy, to “slow things down.” It’s like the normal interaction and speed of the free market bugs entrenched conservative interests. Why should they have to work so hard to maintain their temporary profit margins? Shouldn’t they be able to double it or add a decade to it? AFter all, fair is fair!
Our FF authorized patents for the useful Arts, not for methods of determining abstract concepts. There is a difference.
What is MADE by man is a key. If it is made, it is physical.
The laws require we describe how to make and use. How does one make 1 + 1 = 2. Regarding use, clearly math is broadly useful. But have you described even one use? And, if you describe one, why should your patent cover more?
I ask you to read O'Reilly v. Morse one more time. It is instructive. Abstract concepts need no specification, yet they cover every useful application. This form of patent is not within the patent laws.
“Not everything has to be innovation.”
Non-sequitur
Your post at 5:08 PM is not an argument. It does not address the fact that you get sued for copying and not for innovation.
Try again.
As to counterproductive, clearly you do not understand those arts Ned, nor the progress made in society due to the likes of Deming et al who did not treat business methods like the traditional by guess and by golly but applied science to business management (yes, that same sense of applied as in the rest of the patent-eligible applied sciences).
As to not within the Useful Arts, apparently you do not understand what the UA covers (see the Patently-O guest post by Michael Risch link to patentlyo.com )
As to “need to incent” that is a canard that patents are only for those things that “need.” Progress is a given in the constitutional mandate and the charge is to promote, nowhere is there any notion of “promote only those things that need patents.” You have drunk too much of the anti-patent koolaid.
yet it seems to matter very much in cases that touch your art field….
Prometheus was much closer to my “art field” than Myriad, suckie, and I was very clear there that it didn’t matter whether they went down under 101 or 103. That’s because the rationale for tanking the claims is identical regardless of which method is used.
As I noted in the more recent Whitserve thread, the “composition” claims in Myriad present completely different issues. New, non-obvious and useful compositions that are properly claimed (i.e., structurally claimed) should be eligible subject matter, period. 102 and 103 are perfectly suited for ridding the patent system of composition claims that are too broad.
Composition claims such as those at issue in Whitserve, however, are really more like method claims in that the “structures” recited just window-dressing for the actual “invention” which is an abstract process of information storage and retrieval that would never be considered eligible but for that window dressing.
We already know that this business is way too complex for you, suckie. Not sure why you bother anymore except to create a dust cloud.
Anon, would that we had a simple, clear definition of BMPs. If so, I think Bilski would have banned them.
Now why?
1) Not within the UA; and
2) Counterproductive.
I think patents in the area do not spur any kind of innovation that we need to incent. Rather, such patents only serve to increase economic headwinds.
There is nothing wrong with copying. Or learning. Or emulation. Or competing. Not everying has to be innovation, and even innovation involves copying, borrowing, and building on previous insights others had.
See e.g. link to c4sif.org
Les, it is just black-letter patent law. Ask anyone. A patent gives you no right to make or sell anything. Only the right to stop others. For example suppose there is a patent on a stool: a sitting apparatus having a body-supporting seat attached to at 3 to 4 weight-supporting legs. Now you add a back to this, making it a chair: you can get a patent on a chair: a sitting apparatus having a body-supporting seat attached to 3-4 legs and having a substantially vertical back-supporting member extending from an end of the seat member.
Now if you invent this, you still cannot make your chair. Why? Because it infringes the stool patent.
And so on.
After reading about Google’s progressive, anti-patent, open source agenda on the Patent Ethics thread, and of Google’s strong support of academics and bloggers promoting its views, one begins to wonder if Kinsella has any relationship with Google.
“The State cannot seek to advance the welfare of anyone if doing so infringes on my ability to do absolutely anything at all to my property.”
I assume you intended to use “should not” instead of “cannot” — because the State can prevent you from using your property to infringe another person’s intellectual property (or even real property)
I can see how you are attracted to this philosophy. Few people like to be told what to do. However, that is the very nature of laws – to incentive good behavior and disincentivize bad behavior. Our intellectual property system is intended to incentivize the creation and use of intellectual property. Society, as a whole, benefits when artists, writers, and inventors are able to protect their intellectual property – they produce more, and society has determined that these activities are worth incentivizing.
The problem with your arguments is that they don’t resonate. I can tell the man on the street that when Bruce Springsteen or Carrie Underwood records a song, they should be compensated and provided some protection under the law to keep people from illegally copying that song. The vast majority of people agree that Bruce or Carrie should be compensated. Similarly, if I told them that if an inventor invented the next “IPad,” almost all would agree that the law should protect that invention. That is an easy sell. It becomes much easier when I tell them that eliminating intellectual property rights would greatly reduce the incentive of these artists to produce their work – which means we (as society) would get less of it.
I have yet to see a full-reasoned explanation as to how inventors/artists/writers can realistically monetize their intellectual property (which oftentimes requires a substantial investment in “scarce resources”) when that intellectual property is provided no protection by your system.
“the original is still whole and undamaged and no harm to the original property has been done.”
Wrong. The value of that original property has been decreased, and “value” is characteristic of the original property, and the value of that property is something the MARKET cares greatly about.
If I live in the suburbs and you want to put a pig farm next to my property, in most instances the State (e.g., via zoning regulations) is going to prevent that from happening. Your pig farm is going to decrease the value of my property. It may not “physically” harm a single square inch of my property, but the value of my property will be decreased by the presence of your pig farm. Here, the State allegedly “infringes on [your] ability to do absolutely anything at all to [your] property.” Of course, you may be the kind of guy, after buying a home in a nice residential area, who might welcome a porn store open up in the house next door. However, most people like settled expectations as to the character of the neighborhood they live in.
Sometimes in life you have to give something to get something. Our laws (including laws regarding intellectual property) provided settled expectations about how certain transactions are to be undertaken. This is both efficient and incentivizes the activities covered by these transactions. Where everybody has settled expectations as to how things work under the law, you don’t need to lawyer up. What I’m sure the Libertarians don’t realize is that the only mechanism that they permit to protect intellectual property (i.e., via contract) requires a substantial amount of lawyering. They never account for this cost. Moreover, because everybody’s lawyer is going to do things different, you cannot obtain an economy of scale because each contract will have to be individualized for the given circumstances. Great for the attorneys but really, really bad for the idea generators.
A legal question
Isn’t it a conspiracy when you hire someone to handle a legal problem at a special court. And then because someone lsts two addresses that are unneccessary to the Case, and another person capatalizes on that? Using one address for one of the Pair and then having the other mailing address redirected to the person that has refused to give the files and the POA to the client they are claiming POA on?
And here is a DUH question
And the Atty. still is claiming they gave the files back to the client? Wouldn’t the client have fired the Atty. with the POA the Atty won’t give back if in fact the Files were given back?
Actually, Stephan, if the small fry invent some critical new technology that Apple and others need, their patent on it allows it to compete. They can leverage the value of the patent into a cross license if they want to engage in manufacture and production of cell phones. Alternatively, they can exclusively license one of the big companies, or non exclusively license all.
The patent system justifies and incents investment in small-fry R&D.
What really prevents the small fry from entering the market is the capital requirement to produce and sell a product globally.
Dale, most libertarians are strong proponents of personal and economic freedom. I am reading Kinsella, I think, to be consistent with this view. He believes, fundamentally, that economic freedom is more important that protecting intellectual property.
This does not mean that libertarians do not believe in property rights. One does not need to leap from economic freedom to a complete absence of private property rights. That is nonsense.
The debate here is a limited one: economic freedom brings competition which spurs innovation all by itself, at least in most industries. For such, do we need a patent system at all?
We certainly we do, I think, but only with certain kinds of inventions: chemicals, drugs and anything of that ilk that requires huge investments to initially develop, but which can be ripped off for a song.
Patents are also needed for brand new products and immature industries. But it is not all that clear that patents are needed for large enterprises competing in established markets. Not at all.
Yes, we have all asked this question of Ned for years and he ducks it. I simply have come to the same conclusion of the commenter, “The Shilling Shall Continue” .
Ned is a Shill! He is most likely being paid to blog against business methods and software patents. So no amount of logic, law, or reason will ever change his mind or his rhetoric.
“they just assume that the patent system actually contributes to net wealth, though they have no evidence for this at all.”
Hello Stephan:
Actually it is a proven fact, that has never been successfully refuted in the history of this blog that,….
“Every new patent issued to a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job.”
Now if you don’t believe in jobs and capitalism then thats a different debate. But please don’t ever say again, that patents don’t contribute to net worth, because they do. At least in America.
anon, we fundamentally agree that government is essential to establish and protect rights. Without government, we have the rule of the brute, might makes right and the like, not some fairyland as depicted by philosophers of various agendas.
You didn’t prove any of that. You just asserted it. You are mistaken.
Your smaller companies are only dissuaded from using the patented subject matter. They are free to innovate in this area and get patents of their own. If necessary, they can license, or better yet cross license with the big boys, charging them a net royalty for using their improvements. Thereby funding further research and leap frogging beyond the slow behemoths and embodying the promotion of useful arts called for in the constitution.
What a bunch of rubbish.
You do not get sued for innovation. You get sued for copying. I hope you know the difference, but judging from what you post here, you do not.
Innovation – especially in the face of others and their patents (and against the big corps) is what levels the playing field and allows the smaller companies to compete. Innovation is not (generally) beholding to the market power and size that Big Corps have. You really need to understand this stuff if your theories interact with it.
It’s easy to see how this happens. For example if Apple and a couple other big companies have patents on smartphones, smaller companies are dissuaded from competing. Thus they use their capital for other endeavors. They don’t waste money innovating in the smartphone area, as they know thy will be sued to oblivion. Thus they make no innovations in this area. This is really easy to see.
As for piggybacking–if microsoft makes information public others should of course be free to act on it.
“Otherwise, they face the risk losing any control of their book. Absolutely brilliant”
You misunderstand. There is no control of anything outside of what you can physically control. If a book is out there, there is no ownership of any “ideas” or “expressions” in the book. Since “ideas” and “expressions” cannot be owned, they are free to anyone, and everyone has a right to create (using their own owned materials) the exact same “ideas” and “expressions.” Even if such creation is only exact copying. If I take a book (or any physical thing) and make an exact copy with my own material, the original is still whole and undamaged and no harm to the original property has been done. The State cannot seek to advance the welfare of anyone if doing so infringes on my ability to do absolutely anything at all to my property.
In fact, even giving credit to an earlier author is a form of misappropriation, as there is no credit that can be attributed to free “ideas” and “expressions.”
“Or what if it showed that patents depress overall innovation,”
Patents don’t depress innovation, the suppress copying.
If you are going to continue to suggest otherwise, you should at least suggest a hypothetical where a patent allegedly suppresses innovation.
If you are going to pull out some example, such as a patent prevented some software developer from using a data storage format, our reply will be, no it didn’t, failure to pay a reasonable royalty prevented it. If you want to piggyback on Microsoft’s success, that’s fine. Just pay for the ride.
6,
The problem is not you being facetious, it is that “private army” is exactly what would happen if the State were to be eliminated. The fact that you even think that you were only being facetious shows how little you understand of the topic under discussion. Your immaturity is like a Saturday morning cartoon.
If you create a vacuum of power, that vacuum will be filled. If you remove the checks and balances that only can be provided with a State-like power, the ruthless will ascend who care not at all for your nice platitudes of “let’s share equally” or even “full” respect for individual property rights (no matter how many sticks are conceived as being owned in that bundle).
There is a reason why there are no real world examples of a non-State powered society that would ascribe to the ideals as provided by Kinsella: such simply is divorced from reality and basic human nature.
Theories that ignore the basic human nature that some don’t care for others, that some won’t stop with having only what they need destroys the credibility of the those theories before the ink in which they are written is even dry.
“Doesn’t matter which.”
And yet it seems to matter very much in cases that touch your art field….
Why the dichotomy?
“I am seeing no serious or civil inquiries”
Stephan, there have been plenty of serious and civil inquires, but for which you have merely dismissed as “wrong,” “not an argument,” “not serious,” “not civil” (and notably contrasted with your at least equally non-civil discourse), asked for fallacious proofs, or simply ignored while you repost the same mantra regardless of what is provided or asked of you.
I think that it can be said that everyone gets “what” you are selling (you can stop hawking the links). It’s the “why” and “why that” that have been left unanswered. In other words, the point is not “learning from you” as in blindly accepting what you say because you say it, the point is you defending what you say and whether you have connected your lofty ideals with the real world.
I hope you realize just out of touch you come across.
Sincerely, there is no “insincerity” in those opposing you, and to characterize it as such is intellectually dishonest. And trust me, your time is no more precious than the time generously given by those that oppose your views.
Because a “process” by itself is abtract (whatever that means).
In Ned’s mind, heavily influenced by English common law which did not even allow process patents until late in its history, process patents are not a legitimate category even though they are a fully listed and undifferentiated category in the US law as written by Congress.
This bias comes across quite clearly in both as GOTSP notes: “[Ned’s] treat[ing] the category only as a conduit to obtaining something, some ‘hard good.’” and Ned’s relentless proselytization of MOT, even in the face of back to back Supreme Court decisions that have virtually destroyed MOT as anything but a clue – and definitely not a requirement (recognized as being neither neccesary in Bilski nor sufficient in Prometheus).
Ned, I believe what Business Method Pro is trying to get from you is two-fold:
1) why do you insist on treating the enumerated categories differently (the artifical distinctions between process and hard goods), and
2) then why do you attempt to place a (particular) entire sub category of a (particular) enumerated category off limits (as exemplified in the Bilksi/business method and Prometheus/medical method logic)?
It is this highly selective behavior that is the question.
This is not a new question.
In fact, this sounds in my question that you evaded even acknowledging for over a month and for which you have to this day not answered: Why do you have an agenda against business method patents?
Can you imagine…. How did he get away with this?
I’ve said this before, White Out should be banned on legal Documents, and if found out the do’er should have to pay 50,000 immediately to the local food bank or animal shelter. No ifs ands or buts!
“why should I have to prove the current system is better?”
Is it because challenging you to prove negatives (or prove impossible alternative universe settings) while mouthing “cause and correlation” is seen as an easy dodge from actually addressing the fact that not one single modern advanced society has bought into the massive crock of shtt that Kinsella is selling?
Is it because Kinsella wants to mischaracterize anyone pointing out this disturbing fact as either trying to say the law can never change (no one has ever said that) or the idea cannot be discussed (oddly, as the idea and its non-implementation in the real world are trying to be discussed, but a particular fact keeps being dodged)?
Or is it because the duplicity of being uncivil by outright dismissing others views as “wrong”, and yet hiding behind a “let’s be civil” shield when the discussion turns to as to just how principled Mr. Kinsella is in his quest for others to forego legal rights but he himself is not willing to risk anything?
Is it because the man does not back up what he says, or because the man cannot back up what he says?
“How do you know all this because a few engineers “told you” something?”
No … a sophisticated businessman and entrepreneur, who has headed several large companies, has told me these things. This is somebody that deals with real investors and understands what it takes to attract capital.
“There always has been and always woudl be *some* investment (say, level X), even absent IP.”
The exception doesn’t prove the rule. This is irresponsible. This is not serious arguing at all.
“In fact, even if you were right–why not have X+Y+Z innovation, by having tax-funded prizes.”
No … that is even a worse system – one that you would detest even more. Thus, not worth discussing.
“And what about fields that are not now covered by IP–like, say, fashion, perfumes, food recipes… must they also be covered by new forms of IP? Where will you stop?”
Really?? Fashion is covered by copyright. Although I know of no case, I suspect that perfumes could be protected by copyright as well (actually, they are in the Netherlands at least). As for food recipes, I have seen patents for food products. You do hold yourself out as an intellectual property attorney, right????
“and if a 17 year patent, and a 130 year copyright, stimulate Y additional innovation/creation, why not increase them to 50 and 500 years, or more, to squeeze a bit more out? and if billion dollar fines and small prison terms as now only help a bit, why not impose the death penalty for copyrgiht infringement? Surely that would help stimulate more innovation?”
You call this argument?? This is mindless blathering. As you very well know (or should now), the patent system attempts to straddle the fine line between encouraging disclosure (by rewarding a patent) and not discouraging follow on inventions – by limiting the term of the patent. FYI – you do know that the whole “17 year thing” was changed to 20 years in 1995??? As for copyright protection, I’m untroubled by very long copyright terms.
“Ah. I see. The ultimate conservative argument. Whatever is the law must stay the law. The slavery abolitionists heard the same thing.”
How predictable … I knew you were going to respond exactly that way. In the English law system, the right to a trial by one’s peers was originally established 800 years ago. Are you going to be questioning that system as well? Do we need proof that this is the best system?
“It’s really telling [blah, blah, blah, blah, blah]. This is disgraceful.”
By the way, I really didn’t read the “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” I skimmed over it, realized the ranting for what it was and purged it from my memory. Nice job – way to get your points across.
“The purpose of law [as I want it to be] is not to ‘incentivize’ people.”
There, I fixed it for you. The law is all about incentivizing people to do the right things (or at least not the wrong things). I could probably tell that to a 5th grader and they would likely understand that concept. If you have kids, raise them without putting any structure on them – i.e., allow them to exercise their personal freedom anyway they choose. Tell me how that turns out.
“But thre is no rason to think it would not”
Except that your analysis is extremely superficial and evidences a complete and utter failure to seriously consider the consequences of what you propose.
“The movie Return of the King cost 94 million US dollars to make. On opening weekend, it grossed 199 million. That’s over a 100% return on investment before a digital copy could be fileshared in the wild.”
You realize that gross receipts is not net profit? Wow … and you call me ignorant??? This isn’t just a slip of the tongue, you repeat it when you state “you practically never, ever, see the hundred-percent return on investment on Wall Street financial derivatives that you can make on just opening weekend for a movie production.” Your ignorance of financial matters is astounding. For your sake, I hope you were simply just trying to pull a fast one with the numbers. Oh, I see somebody else wrote it but you put your name on it. Regardless, if you cannot spot a error like that, then that is pretty sad state of affairs for you.
Regardless, in your hypothetical, why would the movie theaters agree to pay for copies of the film. Once the film has been released to a single party, that party is free to distribute to whomever they want for whatever they want. Sure, they would have a contractual relationship with the studio, but if it is a shell company designed to dupe the studio, then the studio will receive nothing after the shell company declares bankruptcy. Also, all it would take is a SINGLE copy to slip out and the whole $200M investment is out the door. Wow … your economic system is something everybody else is going to want to emulate. Invest $200M and get nothing in return. Oh wait … you don’t care about incentivizing certain behavior – you are more than happy to have us devolve into a primitive culture.
Let’s not even get into pharmaceuticals and permitting a company to profit from the $$$$$$$ investment that is needed to take a drug to market. Let me guess, your response will be is that we’ll eliminate the “FDA” and the companies don’t have to go through this long approval process – buyer beware. Yeah great … the market will be flooded with ineffectual remedies – that is definitely a society I want to live in.
BTW – I just looooved your post regarding how an author (e.g., JK Rowlings) could make money on her book. You are asking the author to be the publisher, the marketer, and the distributor. Did you ever think that perhaps the author is best suited for WRITING THE F’N BOOK and not the other stuff????? The author could work with other people, but with no copyright protection there is nothing to prevent them from taking the book and distributing into the wild, and once out there, it is never coming back. As such, you are forcing the author to engage in a number of activities that they (likely) do not have the aptitude. Otherwise, they face the risk losing any control of their book. Absolutely brilliant.
“It approaches Rowling and asks her to consult on the movie and to promote the movie as the ‘best’ and ‘authorized’ version. They pay her $1M plus 2% of box office receipts, and she consults, helps improve it, and makes sure they don’t adulterate her plot too much etc.”
Oh wait, 2% of zero is zero. Box office receipts assume that the box offices have any obligation to pay the studio – not (I addressed this above). I love these hypotheticals in which you take for granted the protections that other intellectual property provides so that the person from whom you’ve taken away other intellectual property can make money. Can we say intellectually dishonest? Perhaps dishonest is a little too strong – perhaps “intellectually shallow” is a better phrase.
Half-baked … I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Frankly, until you come up with some fully-baked ideas, why should I have to prove the current system is better?
I am bowing out of this thread now. I am seeing no serious or civil inquiries from the people still posting, and I have been more than generous with my time. The inscincere nyms attacking me are not serious, and anyone who is really interested in inquiring further can learn more from other material, not blog comments: For those who want to inquire further, as I have noted above, I and others have written in detail on all this. link to stephankinsella.com. I have spoken on it too — various interviews, lectures, and speeches here link to stephankinsella.com — including a 6 week online Mises Academy course, Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics
link to academy.mises.org the audio and slides of which are online for free at link to c4sif.org. And there are various resources at link to c4sif.org
“”First, you have no evidence that patents have been necessary for or even stimulated any net innovation at all.”
“Except that I have had innovators tell me that they would have never formed the company they did except if they didn’t have the intellectual property to protect their innovations. Moreover, their logic was inescapable. Put succinctly, no IP = no investment. I’ve got my evidence …. next.”
Anecdotal stories from people living in a state-distorted system is not evidence. This is not hard to see. As for: no IP = no investment: this is obvioulsy untrue. There always has been and always woudl be *some* investment (say, level X), even absent IP. So your argument, at most, is that withotu a state that grants monopoly privileges in some fields, there would not be *enough* investment–it would not reach level X+Y. But how do you know X+Y is enough? How do you konw Y is positive, and not negative (as I am sure it is)? How do you know the cost of the patent system is less than the value of Y? How do you know all this because a few engineers “told you” something?
This is irresponsible. It is not serious arguing at all, obviously.
In fact, even if you were right–why not have X+Y+Z innovation, by having tax-funded prizes–as people minded like you have suggested? see link to c4sif.org
And what about fields that are not now covered by IP–like, say, fashion, perfumes, food recipes… must they also be covered by new forms of IP? Where will you stop?
and if a 17 year patent, and a 130 year copyright, stimulate Y additional innovation/creation, why not increase them to 50 and 500 years, or more, to squeeze a bit more out? and if billion dollar fines and small prison terms as now only help a bit, why not impose the death penalty for copyrgiht infringement? Surely that would help stimulate more innovation?
“you have the burden of establishing this. Isnt this fair, as a general approach?”
“I’m not the one advocating a drastic change to an economic system that has been around for centuries. I cannot help it if your hatred of the state has blinded you to the fact that good things can come from the state.”
Ah. I see. The ultimate conservative argument. Whatever is the law must stay the law. The slavery abolitionists heard the same thing.
It’s really telling how weak are the arguemtns of people who pretend to be in favor of the IP system. They resort to ad hominem, evasion, ad hoc thinking, straw men, bromides, acontextual anecdotes. Wow, is that really the best you have? Obviously it is. If you had any clear evidence that the patent or copyright system produce net welfare gains for society, you would produce it. Yo udo not. You have no idea. You do not care. You just want to score cheap points. what is sad is you are literally just going throug the motions to defend a copyrgiht system which is being used to jail people (the guy who uploaded Wolverine movie got a year in prison; look at kim dot com; a student in England being extradited here and facing prison for having a website with LINKS to others’ websites) and to threaten Internet freedom in the guise of SOPA, PIPA, TPP, ACTA, and the like; and a patent system hideously distorting research and development, innovation, money, and retarding innovation to boot and imposing hundreds of billions of dollars of costs and impediments on the free market in the US–and you are just laughingly justifying this hideous distortions of free and civil human life with a few handwaves to “well a few engineeers told me” nonsense. This is disgraceful.
“”Let me ask you: suppose we had a good study, and it concluded that the patent system produced $2B of additional innovation, but cost $30B. Would you still be in favor of it?”
“When that study comes out, then you’ll have something to talk about. Until then, I’ll assume that the fittest economic systems have prevailed and that included the protection of intellectual property.”
The studies to date are almonst unanimous: you cannot prove that the patent sytsem does any good, and there is strong reason to think it does a lot of harm. I have catalogued this. see link to blog.mises.org and link to c4sif.org
but regardless: the burden IS on you guys to prove your case. The Founders never proved it. They had a hunch. It has never been verified. It cannot be. IP is immoral and wrong. It is antiproperty. It is a huge huge mistake.
“So, how do you incentivize people to create something that can be easily copied?”
The purpose of law is not to “incentivize” people. The very idea of law has been distorted by the modern unprincipled utilitarian ethos, as your comment shows. You could ask this about any business: why would I build a grocery store if someone can just compete with me?? Why would I make the first computer if someone can just compete with me? Etc. Thsi is life. This is the market. You figure out a way to make a profit by selling a product or service someone wants.
” How do incentivize people to create ideas/content/innovations? It is one thing to throw darts at the current system – it is another thing altogether to create a VIABLE system to replace it.”
The viable system exists, underneath the state regulations: it is the free market. In such a system peopel have wealth and engage in innovation for any number of reasons. You are engaging in central planning.
“Maybe you need a hypothetical to loosen your tongue. I’m a film producer. I want spend $200M to make the next blockbuster film. However, all the countries in the world all simultaneously removed all the laws on intellectual property – mostly based upon your writings. I have come to you to ask you how can I make money from this $200M investment. Explain to me, under this new system, how this can be accomplished.”
the goal of law is not to make sure you can make your $200M blockbuster. But thre is no rason to think it would not. link to c4sif.org and link to c4sif.org
“First, you have no evidence that patents have been necessary for or even stimulated any net innovation at all.”
Except that I have had innovators tell me that they would have never formed the company they did except if they didn’t have the intellectual property to protect their innovations. Moreover, their logic was inescapable. Put succinctly, no IP = no investment. I’ve got my evidence …. next.
“you have the burden of establishing this. Isnt this fair, as a general approach?”
I’m not the one advocating a drastic change to an economic system that has been around for centuries. I cannot help it if your hatred of the state has blinded you to the fact that good things can come from the state.
“Let me ask you: suppose we had a good study, and it concluded that the patent system produced $2B of additional innovation, but cost $30B. Would you still be in favor of it?”
When that study comes out, then you’ll have something to talk about. Until then, I’ll assume that the fittest economic systems have prevailed and that included the protection of intellectual property.
“But you guys have no data.”
Again, I’ve already told you, I have data. I have actual innovator testimony.
“Instead of asking questions, why don’t you find an argument for IP?”
I did … you missed it – I want to encourage the innovators – not the copiers.
“This is false. But you are not intrested in really looking into this issue–as I was.”
Start spilling the beans then. You say that your system protects the creators of ideas and content – explain to me how.
“I’m not a fascist or central planner, so ‘I’ or ‘my system’ does not ‘give credit’ to people.”
So, how do you incentivize people to create something that can be easily copied? How do incentivize people to create ideas/content/innovations? It is one thing to throw darts at the current system – it is another thing altogether to create a VIABLE system to replace it.
Maybe you need a hypothetical to loosen your tongue. I’m a film producer. I want spend $200M to make the next blockbuster film. However, all the countries in the world all simultaneously removed all the laws on intellectual property – mostly based upon your writings. I have come to you to ask you how can I make money from this $200M investment. Explain to me, under this new system, how this can be accomplished.
“You have a set position or vested interest, and are looking to just bash anyone who opposes.”
I like to bash people with half-baked ideas. Show me that your ideas are more than half-baked and perhaps I won’t bash you.
No, the hypo is more inclusive even if you did not intend it to be. The pioneer blazed a trail/short cut to a path. Then started a business guiding people along the short cut to the path. The pioneer is not trying trying to patent the pioneering concept itself. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of guiding people thru the forrest to a well known path. He only seeks to foreclose from others the use of the concept of pioneering in conjunction with all of the other steps in his claimed process.
So once again this brings us back to why you Ned Heller are prejudiced.
Why are you so he ll bent on banning patents of this type?
Not on the map, but on the “applied” process as a whole?
And to keep you from retreading old ground we already established:
1. He/she is not patenting mere information by itself.
2. He/she is not patenting the concept.
3.. His/her process is presumed new/novel, useful and non obvious
“ I suggest honest people look into this and reflect seriously before pontificating on matters beyond their ken. ”
Is trying to subtly slam your discussion partner as dishonest and ignorant an example of being civil?
Are you a MOONIE? And I don’t mean Malcolm. I mean a real honest to goodness Moonie with a tambourine that sings at the airport and at parks.
I CALL EM LIKE I SEE EM. Too bad I have to be politacally correct or I get no post, and McCraken can say anything he wants. So now I know Kinsella must be his whateverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
“This observation is that in all the different countries in the world, we have an extremely wide variety of different types of governments and economic systems. It would seem to me if intellectual property “harmed[ed] economic production and innovation and human freedom,” then at least one country would have eliminated them.”
Here is how it seems to me. The patent system is an obvious, prima facie infringement on liberty and property rights and competition and the free market. If you want to argue that laws the violate property rights etc. are okay, as long as they result in net benefit, you have the burden of establishing this. Isnt this fair, as a general approach?
And you seem to think that just pointing to recent history does the trick–a handwave. It does not. Let me explain why. First, you have no evidence that patents have been necessary for or even stimulated any net innovation at all. You cannot just assume this, based on the fact that the experts have not changed their laws. You cannot just assume this because the west is prosperous–that is mistaking correlation for causation. And even if you could show net innovation, you have to show the cost is worth it. For example NASA probably has resulted in useful innovations on net (maybe). But are they worth the NASA budget? Who knows? It seems to me the burden is on you guys to find this out. Otherwise why would you even support the patent system, if you really have no good data to show that it’s worth it?
Let me ask you: suppose we had a good study, and it concluded that the patent system produced $2B of additional innovation, but cost $30B. Would you still be in favor of it? Or what if it showed that patents depress overall innovation, at $17B per year, in addition to a cost or $30B? Would you be in favor? I suspect not–which means your empirical approach depends on the data. But you guys have no data. You do NOT KNOW. But why are you still in favor of the system? Should the patent term be 5 years? 2? 17? 20? 75? What? Zero?
“These days, you don’t see many countries warring against one another, but you see a lot of economic warfare. In today’s world, the winners and losers are largely determined based upon their economies. As such, why wouldn’t a country eliminate intellectual property if that is what it took to move themselves up the economic ladder? As far as I know, over the last century, every modern country in the world has an intellectual property system. Are you telling me that the intellectual property attorneys in each and every one of these countries have so much sway that they can lobby all of the countries to go against the respective country’s own best interest for all this time? If your presumption is correct (IP is bad for economic production), then somebody would have eliminated it. Why haven’t they?”
Instead of asking questions, why don’t you find an argument for IP? It is telling that you IP shills never have an argument for it. It is always bash the bearer of bad news, etc. It is fine to have qustions. It is fine to admit you are ignorant. It is fine to admit you don’t understand complicated history or political economics. Nor did my 86 year old country grandma. But she did not run around preening and pontificating on issues beyond her ken.
“You get all hung it with the costs of intellectual property without attempting to understand the benefits.”
By all means, please quantify these for us!
” The problem with the “no intellectual property philosophy” is that it provides ZERO protection for the creators of ideas and content.”
This is false. But you are not intrested in really looking into this issue–as I was. You have a set position or vested interest, and are looking to just bash anyone who opposes it.
“You admit that “transforming already-existing, already-owned scarce material, into more valuable arrangements, does in fact create wealth.” Given that admission, how does your side answer the question “how do you give credit for the person that created the wealth?” A pat on the back? An “atta boy!!!”?”
I’m not a fascist or central planner, so “I” or “my system” does not “give credit” to people. IT lets the market function. YOu reallly have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest honest people look into this and reflect seriously before pontificating on matters beyond their ken.
“What is unrealistic is the idea that a central state can issue monopoly privilege grants and expect this not to harm economic production and innovation and human freedom and property rights.”
I’ve made this observation to your buddy Koepsell, and he has never really addressed it. This observation is that in all the different countries in the world, we have an extremely wide variety of different types of governments and economic systems. It would seem to me if intellectual property “harmed[ed] economic production and innovation and human freedom,” then at least one country would have eliminated them.
These days, you don’t see many countries warring against one another, but you see a lot of economic warfare. In today’s world, the winners and losers are largely determined based upon their economies. As such, why wouldn’t a country eliminate intellectual property if that is what it took to move themselves up the economic ladder? As far as I know, over the last century, every modern country in the world has an intellectual property system. Are you telling me that the intellectual property attorneys in each and every one of these countries have so much sway that they can lobby all of the countries to go against the respective country’s own best interest for all this time? If your presumption is correct (IP is bad for economic production), then somebody would have eliminated it. Why haven’t they?
You get all hung it with the costs of intellectual property without attempting to understand the benefits. The problem with the “no intellectual property philosophy” is that it provides ZERO protection for the creators of ideas and content. We are not living in the iron age … we are living in the information age. Information (whether it be ideas, inventions, digital content, etc.) has value – value enough that other people will pay for it.
When I say your concepts don’t fly in the real world, let me explain. A smart economic decision is that if no one will pay you for producing a product, then you should produce that product. It is simply a smart business decision. Sure, there are people who like to give away stuff for free – in very limited circumstances that may work. However, as viable economic model, it stinks.
What you are asking the information creators to do is to produce their information (e.g., ideas, inventions, digital content, etc.) for nothing. Maybe you can contract someone else to provide services associated with the information that you created. However, once the cat is out of the bag (i.e., your information), nobody else has to pay anything for it. As such, to the extent that you cannot guarantee exclusivity to the original entity with whom you contracted, they aren’t going to pay you a lot of money for your information. Here, the smart economic decision is to let somebody else bite the bullet (to obtain the information) and wait until that information becomes public knowledge. Secrets are very hard to keep.
The system (or lack thereof) you advocate values copiers (i.e., those people subject to a “negative servitude” under the current IP system) over creators (i.e., innovators or idea/content generators). This is why your message doesn’t resonate – people (from all walks of life) value creators over copiers. I know, I know, you want to frame the issue in another way. However, talking about “scarce resources” and “state-granted negative servitudes” merely elicits eye-rolls and yawns from the vast majority of people.
I, on the other hand, can frame the issue as simply as “our system values creators over copiers.” It is short and simple. People understand it, and it reflects a value system that the most people subscribe to — “giving credit where credit is due.” Sorry for you, but your rants against “state-granted negative servitude” arguments just cannot compete.
You admit that “transforming already-existing, already-owned scarce material, into more valuable arrangements, does in fact create wealth.” Given that admission, how does your side answer the question “how do you give credit for the person that created the wealth?” A pat on the back? An “atta boy!!!”? Contractually? Again, as I noted above, given the easy and quick dissemination of information, there isn’t much incentive for people to enter into a contractual relationship for that information. Plus, all the contract stuff requires a lot of intervention by the state if you want to enforce it – state = yucky? Am I correct in characterizing that position?
Mr. BMP, but the hypo is that the pioneer discovered the path through the forest. He did not discover pioneering itself. All he could patent would be the particular path, if anything.
If he patents the map, his specification shows the map. So no he would have to determine whether future travelers were using his map to prove infringement. A simply way of doing this would simply to protect the map itself by copyright so that people who want a copy of the map would pay for it, with a royalty going to the pioneer. Why publish the map in the patent specification and cause the pioneer so much trouble proving infringement?
Meet Dale Halling, who believes that one can infringe a patent merely by projecting a movie depicting a fictional character who allegedly carries out the patented steps as part of the plot of the movie.
I wonder what happens if Dale Halling and Stephan Kinsella collide?
“Mr. BMP, but if you can enforce such a patent only against people who are using the map, why not simply protect the map? “
Excellent question. First let’s dispose of the red herring so that we can answer the real question. You should know you can enforce the patent against other businesses that use the entire process. So enforcement is not limited to just a map.
Now, one day the pioneer may decide that guiding people to the path one at a time is too time consuming and limits the amount he can earn in a day. He may be inspired to create a more efficient and economical system that allows him to expand his business.
With his patented process he could then offer other settlers the opportunity to start their own turn key tour guide businesses, using his patented process. All the other businesses would need to do is pay him a royalty and they could have a complete proven process without the time and expense of starting from scratch like the pioneer had to do. The licensees of the pioneer could even incorporate or add on the process to their existing covered wagon renting, or ferrying crossing business as value added services. That is the beauty and value of patents in general and business method/process patents in particular. Everyone prospers and benefits! With business methods in particular you can help more people, hire more workers, and grow the economy of an entire nation!
Prescription drugs sales in the U.S. alone for 2011 were apparently $227,551,806,436 link to statehealthfacts.org
Even Aspirin was patented at one point, so I’m gonna go out on a limb and assert that that is all due to patents. Add to that a large percentage of Apples take and some small percentage of Amazons take due to its terrible monopoly on -one clicking–and right away you’re talking real money.
Mr. BMP, but if you can enforce such a patent only against people who are using the map, why not simply protect the map? I don't see the fundamental problem here. The pioneer's efforts are in fact protected. Everyone buying a map has to pay the pioneer a royalty. He is, in fact, compensated.
Malcolm, did you check out Mayer’s dissent in Whitserve v. CPI Inc.?
“>http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1206-1261.pdf
Yes. Mayer is spot-on.
Either 101 or obvious. Doesn’t matter which. The majority’s opinion that the need more “facts” to find all the claims invalid is horsesh—t.
“But you have no evidence for this. You are just repeating IP propaganda. Boldrin and Levine explode this myth. ch. 9 of Against Intellectual Monopoly. ”
Nonsense. I proved it through logic. I mean, I grant you, someone may stumble from time to time on a cure to something and through the goodness of their heart mention it to the rest of the world. But it would be a rare bird indeed that would spend the money needed even just to get get government approval for a drug, without patent protection.
I hold that truth to be self evident.
Also, a in a communist system, a government might do drug development. Has Cuba introduced any new drugs? I know they have fairly good medical care.
But, I’m pretty sure you don’t want to extort money from people through taxation to support a large government drug development agency…. So, we’re back to relying on the free market and governmental granted intellectual property protection.
“But, unless one wants to make infringers of those who think or who independently find another path, all we can ask is that they pay for a copy of the map.”
Anyone that uses any type of invention is required to think. So to deny the pioneer his/her patent because the end user or performer of the process must think, would be grounds for denying ALL patents. And thus make one truly anti patent. Is that your view Ned?
Now as far as “independently find another path,” well that would all depend on scope of the pioneers invention. For example his/her invention may be limited to the process as a whole which includes, discovering the path, clearing the ground, guiding the customer, receiving consideration in exchange for guiding, and/or providing a map. So simply “finding” another path would not infringe.
But if you are saying the pioneer can’t have a patent because others might independently invent the same process that too is applicable to ALL inventions.
Which bring us all the way back to why you are against the pioneer’s business method getting a patent but apparently for everyone else getting a patent?
I simply want to know the basis for your prejudice. I know others have posted comments about why you discriminate against business methods but I would really like to hear it from your own mouth.
Incidentally, for those who keep pestering me to keep explaining things–I have written in detail on all this. link to stephankinsella.com. I have spoken on it too — various interviews, lectures, and speeches here link to stephankinsella.com — including a 6 week online Mises Academy course, Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics
link to academy.mises.org the audio and slides of which are online for free at link to c4sif.org. I am getting a bit tired of answering the same questions repeatedly that i have already answered here, or elsewhere. People who are really curious about this and interested in justice– I have provided sufficient links to let them explore further.
Nice cop-out Steve.
(btw, the phrase used by DAHSTICBTCTGCOSSH was “some would consider” – an opinion, and if you are letting opinions shut down what you have to say…)
Now if you would be imprisoned for tax evasion, that would be a different story, right?
Actually, it does prove Les’s point by your own answer.
That answer: “And there is no right to earn back your investment. If there was, we would outlaw all competition”
The law of infringement is just that: outlawing all competition for a limited time.
It is not “trying to protect [] from.” It is LAW.
Try to be honest.
You kind of missed the other part of the post by SKW, Steve (the part about the need for State force)…
Somehow, ‘ohh, you are a bad person’ does not seem likely to be effective in a trade sanction situation.
“it is my position that without the patent system, there would be no new medicines. ”
But you have no evidence for this. You are just repeating IP propaganda. Boldrin and Levine explode this myth. ch. 9 of Against Intellectual Monopoly. Just take a look. http://www.againstmonopoly.org.
No one can argue there woudl be NO new medicines without a patent system. At most you can argue there would be FEWER pharmaceutical innovations without the patent system. But so what? Even by your own unprincipled utilitarian standard, you would have to prove that the value of the alleged additional innovations is greater than teh cost of having a patent system. So tell us: what is the cost, and what are the benefits? Just rough dollar estimates.
Of course, you will not answer, or even try; no one knws this. You people just assume there is a net positive; or, rather, you pretend to assume it; I don’t think anyone really believes this. they just trot it out as an argument point. tell us, please: what is the cost of the patent system, and what is the value of the extra innovation it induces or induces-early? Just gives me some numbers. Or don’t you know?
“sn’t patent infringement outlawed?
Doesn’t this prove the point put forth by Les?”
No. It is an example of trying to protect companies from competition.
W-anking? nice. More incivility. I guess if I had no arguments…
“Why does Chile abide by a treaty with Peru, say? No one will make them.”
It does not take a higher court to “make them.” You never heard of trade sanctions?”
Yes, and in a free society there would be “sanctions”–reputational effects, etc.–from violating norms. As happened in, say, the Law Merchant.
I won’t talk to anyone who accuses me of sedition. That is the way of shutting down a conversation, since sedition means you think what the other person says shoudl be illegal, and punished by force. You cannot have a civil discussion with someone who wants you to be imprisoned for daring to voice your thoughts.
“What I can’t figure out is why”
Easy: let the professed enemy of the state h_ang himself with his own rope.
Clearly, Kinsella, more than anyone, has done more damage to Kinsella’s belief structure by shining a light on the “principles” supporting that belief structure.