Just think of what would have happened if Farnsworth could have patented the TV. He would have been able to run a business without fearing RCA would steal his idea, and sue him into oblivion!

Oh, wait. Farnsworth *did* have a patent for the TV. RCA *still* sued him into oblivion. While he wouldn’t have had the resources of a large company, without patents, he could have pursued his TV business without worrying about what RCA could have done to him. He could have been a little gadfly in the TV market–and, who knows? Perhaps he would have been able to expand to become a *real* RCA competitor?

For instance, what about statutes of limitations? A case against many crimes cannot be filed more than 7 years, I think, after the crime has allegedly taken place.

If I remember correctly from the classes I took, even if it might be impossible to sue for stealing after a certain time, the thief does not gain ownership, merely he cannot be persecuted. If the actual owner somehow manages to get the stolen goods back, the thief cannot make any demands. Maybe in the US it is different. But the point is the same: it does not mean the crime didn’t happen, merely the options of resolving it become different.

What should be the term of punishment for murder, rape, robbery, theft, etc.? Should capital punishment be allowed or not?

Russ, hopefully you recognise that the following questions are distinct:
- does a specific set of facts match a criterion or not?
- what facts should we gather to determine whether a criterion is met?
- if a criterion is met, what should we do?

What about the strong negative moral judgment most people, including libertarians, have against (many instances of) ripping off someone’s ideas, and the resulting shunning, etc. that they practice against such people?

No matter how you define property, externalities are unavoidable because causality extends to infinity. But you already know that, right? Just the inconvenience of cognitive dissonance is preventing you from facing reality.

http://blog.mises.org/13442/leveraging-ip/#comment-707288

Please, no more whining about being attacked, nothing makes me more sad than a whining hypocrite.

Thanks for addressing my argument in a civil fashion, instead of addressing me in an uncivil fashion.

“Russ’ analogy fails because he confuses disagreement over punishment with disagreement over the nature of the right that calls forth punishment. E.g., the fact that IP law grants “rights” for certain periods of time which are generally arbitrary (at best) already indicates that we’re talking about something quite different from a right not to be murdered.”

I don’t think you’re correct here. For instance, what about statutes of limitations? A case against many crimes cannot be filed more than 7 years, I think, after the crime has allegedly taken place. So, under a statute of limitations, if you don’t have the right to pursue justice pursuant to some other right, then you effectively don’t have said right, since legally a right amounts to the right to pursue justice if the right has been violated. So, the law effectively grants many regular rights for only an arbitary amount of time. (There is no statute of limitations on murder, I believe, but that difference is also arbitary.)

Anyway, I didn’t address the “nature of the right that calls forth punishment” because that was not part of the SK’s argument that I addressed. I simply applied his argument to another case, in an attempt at a reductio ad absurdem argument.

We follow the HP model (and Polaroid in the old days). Sell ‘em the laser cheapish and make it up on the optical fibers. The fibers are encoded and the laser system will not accept third party knockoffs. No IP protection needed there.

Now, are we “gouging” the consumers? Not a bit. We would have to charge MUCH more for the laser itself if we weren’t assured that we would enjoy a continuing cash flow from the “consumables”.
Win-Win.

I understand, you being a liar, you think I am too, but I told you, I talk to you to show how unlibertarian you are so that we may distance ourselves from Republicans. Now, please tell us more about how you love the Tea Party.

Oh, and I just realized why you would use 1984 as a joke despite the fact its damned near prophesy (with a lot of Brave New World thrown in): Orwell was a socialist and therefore an idiot in your cartoon world. Please, not with the come back: a lot of what you say is of value outside of your childish campaign against anarchists and begging for and getting a surveillance state.

Like my momma always says, stupid is as stupid does. And since I can’t seem to pull myself out of these threads with you…

“The fact that there are no “widely held, coherent, uniform moral intuitions” about the legal niceties does not mean that the supposed rights involved do in fact exist. It was a simple little joke.”

Yes. But SK was apparently saying that since there are no “widely held, coherent, uniform moral intuitions” about the legal niceties of IP, IP rights do not exist. At least, that’s the way I understood him. I was merely pointing out that if that argument were valid, then it proves that regular rights don’t exist either. It was a simple little reductio ad absurdem argument.

“…you are such an embarrassing clown harrassing him and Surda.”

If I am an embarrassing clown for harrassing them, then what is a person who goes to such trouble to harrass an embarrassing clown?

What a bizarre tactic. Dollars to donuts he watches Faux News.

The fact that there are no “widely held, coherent, uniform moral intuitions” about the legal niceties does not mean that the supposed rights involved do in fact exist. It was a simple little joke.

Aside: I don’t care what SK thinks, he might push too hard on some of this stuff, at any rate, there is no way for the State to enforce “IP” in any sensible way and you are such an embarrassing clown harrassing him and Surda.

So, Matt, you don’t agree that people have the right to not be murdered, raped, robbed, or stolen from?

Don’t forget the “right to a decent living” and the “right to free medical services”

What should be the term of punishment for murder, rape, robbery, theft, etc.? Should capital punishment be allowed or not? What should the prison term be? Should murder motivated by racial hatred be given a stronger punishment? Should abortion be considered murder? Should that be only partial-birth, or any abortion? Should there be a three-strikes-you’re-out rule for violent crime? Non-violent theft?

Nonetheless, most people agree that people have the right to not be murdered, raped, robbed, or stolen from.

The fact that there are no “widely held, coherent, uniform moral intuitions” about the legal niceties does not mean that the supposed rights involved do not in fact exist.

“Given that IP is a creature of the state…”

What about the strong negative moral judgment most people, including libertarians, have against (many instances of) ripping off someone’s ideas, and the resulting shunning, etc. that they practice against such people? Is that a creature of the state, too?

There are not widely held, coherent, uniform moral intuitions out there about: how long the term should be for patent or copyright; how to distingish the types of protection available (or not) for various thing such as inventions (patent), designs (design patents), fashion (none), perfume smells (none), abstract ideas, theories, math equations (none), novels (copyrihgt), paintings (copyright), software (patent and copyrihgt), secrets (trade secret), reputation (defamation law), hybrid plants (plant patents), business methods (limited or no protection), surgical methods (much more limited patent rights), and so on.

there are no uniform moral intuitions about extending copyright to non-literal copying, or derivative works. Nor for whether patent should protect only novel and non-obvious inventions or just novel ones, nor for what these standards are, nor for what consitututes prior art.

Assuming a private version of any set of rules could arise that bears a real resemblance ot IP law, simply shows ignorance of waht the IP system is really like. How about the common sentiments about taxation, the draft, eminent domain, public school, drugs being bad, etc.–would all those result in judges issuing private versions of the drug war, public schooling, and the like? Hey, maybe judges would “rule” that a public road should be built too!

Nope, and beyond that, the State is a lousy way to remedy these natural irritations, as it is in all things.