Did I realize?

- that “Large well-connected firms now use environmental regulations as a way to erect barriers to entry”? Sure, it’s been one of my continuing refrains. If we removed environmental barriers to entry+permits, public utility monopolies, limited liability of corporate shareholders, and the role of governments as owners of resources, no doubt we’d see dramatic changes in fossil fuel consumption+technology.

- that “the state is happy for the helpful justifications in controlling all”? Sure, it’s a concern that I have always shared

- that “academia uses the politics of “scientific consensus” to loot”? Academia doesn’t loot so much as it takes advantage of opportunities. Moreover, most researchers believe sincerely that we face a real serious problem; this belief is widely shared in the insurance industries and even in the oil+gas cos. No doubt they and others like Bill Gates would step in to provide funding were governments to stop doing so. http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/02/04/geoengineering-say-it-ain-t-so-bill-world-s-richest-man-revealed-as-sugar-daddy-to-vicious-crackpot-envirofascist-cult-quot-scientists-quot.aspx

TT

By the way, did you realize that there are principled, libertarian approaches that would address climate change risks and concerns?
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/02/10/towards-a-productive-libertarian-approach-on-climate-energy-and-environmental-issues.aspx

Yes indeed. Now extend your line of enquiry some.

Basically, global-warming schemes favour the large and well resourced over the man of modest means. Large well-connected firms now use environmental regulations as a way to erect barriers to entry; while academia uses the politics of “scientific consensus” to loot. Meanwhile, the state is happy for the helpful justifications in controlling all.

Not a great difference from the IP situation really.

Did you realise?

–

You’re a little late. I returned from the Islands April last and moved to NZ not so long after. It is interesting what altered and what is remaining as it was. Might be time to go over to Asia for a while.

Sione

Well said, Sione, and welcome back.

Large industrial firms now use patent IP as a way to erect barriers to entry; while media enterprises use copyright to loot. Meanwhile, the state is happy for help in controlling informal markets.

TT

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/12/20/what-is-quot-property-quot-a-few-weird-thoughts-on-evolution-society-quot-property-rights-quot-and-quot-intellectual-property-quot-and-the-principles-we-structure-to-justify-them.aspx

TT

FYI, here is a summary of Mises’s discussions of IP:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/10/06/mises-on-copyrights-by-bettina-bien-greaves-his-student-translator-editor-and-bibliographer.aspx

It seems Mises was sympathetic to utilitarian arguments FOR IP; perhaps now, given the growing abuses, he’d be sympathetic to the principled and utilitarian arguments AGAINST IP that Stephan is now marshalling.

TT

Cost of patenting in time, money and resources are high. Better to invest in your business, get to market and improve it. Rather that than playing the IP game.

Existing patents & patent applications, many of which you will be unaware of (at least initially) represent significant barriers. They can hinder or even keep you from the market. They can even be employed to destroy your business activity outright simply by the method of out-spending your resources. They wreck your business, diluting your market activities and forcing you to direct resorces to defending yourself against vexatious litigations instead of developing your business.

Even were to to successfully patent some innovation, you still need to defend your patent against anyone who may decide to employ it. That costs much time, money and resource. You may well be outspent… In the meantime you’ve not been developing your business. Instead you’ve been wasting time on the IP game. All your patent filing did is put your business all over a publically searchable database.

Basically, IP protection schemes favour the large and well resourced over the man of modest means. A modest man is better to bring his innovation to market first, harvest what he can and then move on to the next innovation as soon as possible. The one advantage he has is the first mover advantage. IP protection causes expensive delays and that favours large, slow moving institutions who enjoy exploiting the status quo. Why choose to compete on a battlefield that favours the other guy?

Sione

as long as it is not stolen, there is no harm done to anyone by using an idea someone else has already released and marketed.

loss of profits from the loss of an IP monopoly isn’t harm, it is the difference between a free market and a state market.

did he buy it?

creators in a free market have all the freedom in the world to do what they want with their books, etc. supply and prices will reflect what they decide. chances are an author’s “first sale” of a really good book will bring a really good price. sytems naturally adapt to freedom. restriction always limits freedom and the ability to adapt. but we don’t know, do we, that’s why it is called a “free” market.

as libertarians, we claim to oppose agressive force. which situation uses agressive force, that of free exchange of ideas or state enforced IP restriction? where has agressive force been used when someone copies that which they have already purchased in full consent of buyer and seller?

on the other hand, hey, don’t copy your friend’s cd, you may end up in the gulag.

can’t speak for others, but I am a musician myself and I am not interested in being partially free. not interested in protecting some folks [even if those folks include me] right to privlege and eliminating others. we all give up privlege and there will be more than enough left to go around for anyone who is wiling to do something of value.

i don’t want a state that protects me from someone copying one of my cds that i have already sold on the market. why would i not want some other musician playing a song i wrote? getting paid to play it? how can that hurt me? should we “confiscate” apples for some farmer who bought an apple at the store, planted the seeds and harvested the fruit?

IP freedom isn’t “communal” at all, its market oriented. what is socialistic is IP restriction.

So it’s utilitarian, then?

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/10/21/english-heritage-seeks-copyright-stonehenge/

this is even more absurd than the recent SA initiatives to patent wild-growing medicinal herbs on behalf of San descendants.

The argument is not that patents increase costs, the argument is that the benefits/costs are impossible to determine.
And then when you factor in that the implementation of patents results in definite negative effects (as opposed to the lack of definite negative effects involved in *not* implementing them), it becomes obvious that the utilitarian case for patents fails.

If I ‘steal’ a idea or concept from you it does not in any, way, shape, or form inhibit you from using your ideal.

If I ‘steal’ a loaf of bread from you then that means you can’t make any use of it at all anymore.

IP _laws_, patents in particular, themselves do not protect your idea or concept from ‘theft’ because the laws equally apply to people that copy your invention and people that happen to stumble on the same invention in a completely parallel and unrelated manner. It is not necessary to copy a invention violate patents.

In fact in software (I do not know about other industries, but I think the trend in them will be strong) I think that you find that the vast majority of litigation is done on independent inventions that just happen to be similar enough to fall under the scope of a patent completely by happenstance.

Therefore if anybody is arguing that ‘IP’ is actual property then they:
1. Are off on a tangent and are not talking about anything to do with the IP laws we currently have.
or
2. Don’t understand how the IP laws are actually enforced and how they apply to the real world.

Seriously, I want to know exactly what Dave Narby/Silas Barta/etc. propose. You’ve both given why you don’t want repeal but why you think the current system doesn’t work. What neither of you has really done is provide the scope. Silas has lately given some kind of argument for term limits (as has Omar) but I’ve not seen sufficient detail.

So take this opportunity to place exactly what you’d like to see. Here’ s what I’m looking for, but feel free to extend your position as much as you like.

1) Does your IP have term limits? If so, how long are they? Does the term go up/down? If you don’t know how long they are provide a methodology by which you would determine a term limit. Could the term limit be different for different things? If so, how would one establish variable term limits and when would they apply? (variable term limits exist for patents/copyright/etc. now, but I’m saying they might be variable even to a specific “property”)

2) What is the scope of IP in areas like literature, music, pictures, etc.? By this I mean does IP count as a word -> sentence -> paragraph -> page -> chapter -> book? Does IP apply to paraphrase? Does IP apply to plot concept? Does IP apply to character names, object names, titles/etc?

Does IP apply to modified versions of a picture (at some percentage of modification?) ?

Does IP apply to a series of notes? (How long of a series?) The entire lyrics, a portion of the lyrics? The title of the song? How long does a song have to be to be IP?

3) For patents, how do you determine which inventions can have a patent? What level of complexity is necessary? Can software have a patent? How do you determine “independent discovery”? (assuming you believe it’s allowable)

4) Who is going to enforce the rules? (Government or the market?)

5) What privileges do rule enforcers have in terms of finding out about infractions? Do they have the right to crack encryption, entice people to download illegal copies from them, hack computers, etc? Do they have the right to demand (by threat of government or private force) a service provider give up information concerning users (that the service provider would not willingly give) ?