It’s bad enough that IP advocates dishonestly use the word “theft” to describe use of your own property in contravention of a monopoly issued by the state. (After all, as Nina Paley reminds us, copying is not theft; when you use information to guide your action or configure your own property, the originator of the idea still has it.) But use of the word “piracy” to describe pattern-copying is going too far. Real pirates storm boats, rape, loot, murder; they break things; they leave the victims dead, injured, enslaved or at the least missing many former possessions. Modern IP “pirates,” of course, do none of these things.
So it is indeed ironic that in there is a connection between IP and real piracy: namely, they go hand in hand.
Patent and copyright originated in the machinations of sovereigns (monarchs, etc.) to win the loyalty and services of entrepreneurs and artists. “Letters Patent” and later copyrights were exclusive monopolies protecting various goods and services and their authors or purveyors for a period of time. As Historian Patricia Seed notes:
The word “patent” comes from the Latin patente, signifying “open.” Letters patent are open letters, as distinguished from letters close, private letters closed up or sealed. Letters patent came from a sovereign … and were used to … confer a right, title, or property, or authorize or command something to be done.
In fact, Letters Patent were used by the British Crown to entice pirates to become “privateers” (a fancy name for legitimized piracy), by giving them a monopoly over some of the spoils of their piracy for a given time. A notorious example is Francis Drake (I won’t call this slaver and pirate “sir”) who was given a Letter Patent March 15, 1587 to authorize his piracy, such as attacking Spanish ships sailing back from South America laden with silver, handing it over to the Queen after taking his share. (See David Koepsell, Let’s Get Small: An Introduction to Transitional Issues in Nanotech and Intellectual Property.) According to Wikipedia, Maritime History of England, Drake
made the first English slaving voyages, taking Africans to the New World. Drake attacked Spanish ships sailing back from South America laden with silver. He took their treasure for himself and his queen. He also raided Spanish and Portuguese ports. He undertook a circumnavigation of the world in 1572 and 1573. He discovered that Tierra del Fuego was not part of the Southern Continent and explored the west coast of South America. He plundered ports in Chile and Peru and captured treasure ships. He sailed up to California and then across the Pacific Ocean to the East Indies. He returned to England with his ship full of spices and treasure, so gaining great acclaim.
In other words, patents were originally used to authorize actual piracy. So it is ironic that modern defenders of IP claim to be opposed to IP “pirates”—even though real pirates (like Francis Drake) kill people, break things, and take things from people (and delivered slaves into bondage), while “information pirates” do none of these things.
Of course, Letters Patent evolved into modern patents. At first employed sporadically by monarchs, later they became “democratized” as part of entrenched and more predictable state institutions. (One of the first patent statutes was England’s Statute of Monopolies of 1624.)



{ 18 comments }
Oh, wow! Such a damning etymology for IP proponents to have to face! That’s almost as bad as property rights supporters having to defend landlords!
Mr Kinsella,
You have a lot of interesting points, but the connections aren’t clear. Did the inventors of modern notions of IP “piracy” know that “patents were originally used to authorize actual piracy”? It appears that you are trying to demonstrate that IP proponents knew this and deliberately misuse the term (thus duping the ignorant masses), yet you didn’t provide evidence of this. Looking forward to your future posts on this subject.
I think that in this case the use of the word “ironic” is correct …
… meaning, that the inventors of the phrase “IP piracy” are unaware that IP’s ultimate origin was as a form of piracy. [cf. Oedipus Rex.]
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It does not do to distort the facts in service of truth, for then you destroy what you seek:-
No, he was not an example of “Letters Patent … used by the British Crown”. There was no British Crown then, not even a personal union of the Crowns of England and Scotland. That’s over a century out. (I usually have to correct USAians who incorrectly write “England” for “Britain”; the other way round is rarer.)
Technically, the specific form of letters used were “letters of marque and reprisal”. Privateering was not simply “a fancy name for legitimized piracy”, though it could and sometimes did degenerate into that. Rather, it was privatising war activities targeted at enemy resources that themselves threatened one’s own commerce; it was about retaliation on the cheap. In Drake’s case, he was attacking Spanish maritime activity that had been seizing English sailors and imprisoning them as heretics if they didn’t both convert acceptably and serve Spain – there was a simmering religious cold war at the time. See, e.g., The Revenge, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.
Wrong. They were actually originally used for other things, such as setting up monopolies on behalf of somebody who paid for the privilege, e.g. a soap monopoly. This is actually a later, related use.
Privateers were frequently pirates and switched back and forth depending on which way the winds blew. The difference between the two groups is one of legality and not activity. The only major difference in activity is that privateers did not attack the government they were working for at the time. It seemed more of a situation were your weaponizing piracy then anything else.
As far as Letters of Marque vs Letters of Patent it seems like the term ‘Letters of Patent’ is generic and ‘Letters of Marque’ is specific.. that is ‘LoM’ is a ‘LoP’.
The significant thing is that the author is quite wrong in tracing modern patents from privateering with its piratical connection, just as much as someone thinking men are descended from gorillas. Rather, there is a common precursor. Since he made such a big deal out of the fancied lineage, it’s a big enough deal to call him on it.
P.M., I laid out exactly why I find this interesting–it’s simply ironic. I don’t see why your pettifogging over we should say “English” as opposed to “British” is relevant. (Silas: this is not about etymology; it’s about history.) And the origin is that the patent was a grant of authority from the sovereign to some private person to do something otherwise illegal, to capture some kind of monopoly profits or plunder, which were shared with the sovereign. This is what patents do now; it’s no surprise it came out of this original practice. How does it do it now? The state grants a patent to an applicant (supplicant?), for a fee. Then the patentee uses this patent as a ticket to get into the state’s courts, to extort (plunder, pirate) money from competitors. More fees are paid to the state courts during this process, of course, and then the state extracts 40% or so of this award in the form of taxes. Everyone is better off except (some of) the victimized companies–and the consumer, who simply sees higher prices.AS David Koepsell observes in a comment on my C4SIF cross-post:
Re “British Crown,” I was quoting from Koepsell, to whom I linked. Actually I came across this in a longer quote from reviewing the manuscript of his forthcoming book, Wares; here is the original quote from the draft manuscript, along w/ a link to the Patricia Seed article that he references:
nice.
In fact, now I’ve had a quick look around, I find no strong evidence that privateers using letters of marque and reprisal came under the head of Letters Patent at all, though the possibility that it may even so have been a general category is there.
Yes.
It looks is if ‘Letters Patent’ is more general and ‘Letters of Marque’ and ‘Letters of Reprisal’ were specific types of ‘Letters Patent’.
This seems like a fun website:
http://www.piratesinfo.com/cpi_letters_of_marque_pirates_piracy_pirate_954.asp
The letters themselves were open documents, or ‘Letters Patent’, written in the secretarial hand of the day and marked with the Royal seal. They were intended to be held by the ‘venterer’ or ‘privateer’ as evidence of his royal licence. Early English examples were written in Latin, or occasionally French and, from the 16th century, in English. They are often long-winded, repetitive and full of legalistic language, containing repeated listing of the people to whom the licence is issued and to whom it is addressed or to whom it should apply, with many an ‘aforesaid’ or ‘hitherto fore’.
This stuff is trivial, of course. But it’s always interesting to see were legal institutions get their originations.
“This stuff is trivial, of course” – no; see my reply above. The author made it a big deal, so it is.
I think that it’s trivial. I can’t see how it’s not trivial. That’s why they call this sort of stuff ‘trivia’. It’s interesting also to know were the term and idea of ‘patents’ come from.
Etymology does matter; words mean stuff. In terms of relative scale with other issues I don’t give it a terribly high importance, though.
Why does everything have to be such a huge deal?
It’s just a funny thing because the whole word ‘pirates’ being slung around by everybody.
You’re right, nate-m. It’s like some people are afraid of information. They want you to be banned from saying things if it does not meet some test. The information is not that profound but it’s interesting, or so I think. People who don’t think it’s interesting can ignore it.
The author was called-out on the core point of his piece. In pointing out his recklessness in quoting others, the piece is weaken and does not show any added knowledge beyond what we have read on IP pros and cons. Nonetheless, it was interesting and pointing: the continued bastion of the author’s history error due to quoting.
Thanks for correcting… I will change ‘british’ to English in proofs. The point is merely one of irony, and that remains true, as patents are the blanket term, encompassing specific forms of grants that often turned pirates into ‘privateers,’ using monopolies as enticements by states to commit violence on behalf of the state.
Very interesting article. Some time ago I read an interesting article which is not connected to the IP but Pirates themselves and how invisible hands of the market worked among them. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pirate-economics
This article about privateering is very educational (it is also found in Myth of National Defense)
Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for Private Profit
Larry J. Sechrest
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Sechrest6.PDF
Comments on this entry are closed.