As the Fall Semester has just ended, I wanted to take a minute to thank you for all that you’ve done to advance the cause of teaching, research, and public commentary in economics. I use Mises.org just about every day for all three.
I had an interesting experience earlier today when I tried to access the website for some reason or another and got a message reading “HTTP Error 503: The service is unavailable.” That caused me to think about what a massive blow it would be to the cause of freedom if Mises.org ever went down. One thing is certain: I would have to rework my plans for the “Classical & Marxian Political Economy” course I’m teaching this spring as I have selected a number of readings from the free resources that the Institute is able to make available. Also, I finished the first book I’ve read on my new iPad this afternoon. It was Ralph Raico’s Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal. It’s a book I might not have read if it hadn’t been available on Mises.org, and it is definitely going to change the way I teach my Economic History course.
You might also know that I make weekly contributions to Forbes.com here. I honed my craft writing Daily Articles for the Mises Institute, and I am pleased that I am still able to contribute to the Mises Blog a couple of times a week. Some of my articles have been translated into different languages, and some are appearing on the websites of various Mises Institutes that are springing up around the world. Several months ago, I learned that a working paper I had posted on Mises.org entitled “The Market’s Benevolent Tendencies”–which ultimately appeared as a chapter in an edited volume called Business and Religion: A Clash of Civilizations?–has been translated into Farsi.
So if you’re wondering whether you’re making a difference, the answer is “yes.” I hope that is evident in my teaching, research, and writing. There are many more professors like me, and our number grows each year. We are able to do what we do in no small part because of your support, and I just wanted to take a minute to offer my sincere gratitude.
Art Carden
Assistant Professor of Economics and Business
Rhodes College
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15095/a-note-to-donors-to-the-mises-institute/
A Note to Donors to the Mises Institute
Previous post: If only our rulers were more like Cuba’s
Next post: Breadcrumbs on Media
{ 66 comments }
I just set up the paypal monthly recurring donation setup, but I could not enter any other pieces of information like it was offerred to me on the credit card payment page(like what do I want my donation to be used for, or ‘in memory or honor of’). There should be a mechanism for that. I wanted my funds to go for “Audio and Video production”, but I couldn’t specify it.
Not sure what went wrong, but you can always send an email to contact@ and specify this.
Give donation or buy books.
Darned Picard’s Syndrome!
I frankly find it impossible to open my wallet for Mises.org after reading the efforts of Stephen Kinsella, and even more difficult after being subject to his and his friend’s ‘tender mercies’ after attempting to discuss the consequences of his proposal of eliminating IP.
The anonymous writer at Strangerous Thoughts has done a masterful job of exposing these types of fallacies with regards to IP. He/She has covered all of my arguments and many, many more, and has done so in an exhaustive and rigorous manner, much better than I think I ever could: http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/ I invite you to read it, it is an excellent defense of IP and expose’ of those who oppose IP.
The only fair criticism (in my opinion) that can be leveled at Strangerous is that their expose’ is verbose. They explain this however as a counter to Kinsella’s most effective tactic which he took from the advertising/propaganda trade: Repeat often. Kinsella uses this because his ideas fall back on circular logic and other fallacies, being devoid of any honesty or even common sense.
I personally have attempted to rationally discuss the consequences of his proposals on these pages, and have been met with the most amazing evasion, misdirection, irrationality, and derision and abuse. I never expected such treatment from an organization that presents itself as a bastion of rationality and honesty. Frankly, I am appalled.
As long as Mises.org continues to offer itself as a platform for what in essence is Communism of Intellectual Property, and tolerates abusive and dishonest discourse on the part of its article writers (Kinsella), I will not donate. In fact, I cannot even suggest friends and associates come here as a source of Libertarian or Economic ideas, for fear they will read Kinsella and thus reflexively reject all of Mises.org as a result of guilt by association. This is regrettable, as most of what Mises.org has to offer is excellent. I urge you to re-examine your opinion and policy on this, and you’re allowing Mises.org to be a platform for such dishonesty.
Best regards,
Dave Narby
Secretary
Staten Island Libertarian Party
A consistent application of IP would mean that Mises.org would not exist. Anyway, keep reading and learning.
As Mises.org is not a capitalist enterprise, IP is not very relevant to its operations. I don’t understand your objection.
What is the definition of a capitalist enterprise?
.com vs. .org.
Risk-based capital investment in consumer goods, as defined by Bohm-Bawerk.
The Mises Institute does not pay its writers out of its own capital for new books. It is not a capitalist enterprise.
Hey Dave, do you believe the originator of an idea is justified in using force againist copiers? If so, why?
You might have attempted a rational discussion, however for some reason it always appears to end up with you running away from a debate.
If most of the site is excellent, does it really make sense to reject all of the Mises Institute, ie, not recommending it to others so that they won’t see Kinsella’s ideas, because of its endorsement of an idea that you don’t agree with? It seems that the benefits far outweigh the (supposedly) negative impact.
Also, it strikes me as bad form to try to limit your friends and associates’ exposure to ideas, any ideas, even if they’re not your cup of tea. The discussion is more important than being right.
Hi Jim,
The comments above are a perfect example of what I am talking about. After I posted this, within minutes a “hit squad” forms to overwhelm me. If you will notice, they keep referring to previous fallacious arguments in the ultimate self-referential reasoning, it is designed after the principles of advertising: “Repeat often”. None of the actual issues regarding IP are dealt with.
It’s not just that I don’t agree with Kinsella’s ideas. The issue is that the debate is dishonest, and the central issues are never dealt with. There is no attempt to persuade me with logic or reason, only a brute attempt to bury me in a tsunami of fallacy, and when that fails, ridicule. What type of organization permits this?! At best it is lazy and sloppy, at worst it has some hidden agenda.
As a result, I cannot support Mises.org, nor can I be an advocate for it. Mises.org has the absolute right to promote Intellectual Communism. I have the absolute right to oppose it, with as much energy .
Best regards,
Dave Narby
Secretary
Staten Island Libertarian Party
“fallacious …dishonest…brute attempt… ridicule…lazy and sloppy…hidden agenda….Intellectual Communism”
“self-referential”, indeed.
Have you ever been on a high traffic, open blog before? A bunch of nobodies are going to take shots at you no matter what your positions are, but especially here when one supports government-corporate schemes.
Please answer in three sentences or less:
If IP protection is removed, then how will the innovators in society be compensated?
Dave, are you making the claim that without the state, no one can be compensated?
Dave, are you arguing that the state is necessary for innovators to be compensated?
Please answer in three sentences or less:
(Imagine you grew up in a communist world, with no free enterprise anywhere on the planet and no history of such:) If government control of food production is removed, then how will people eat?
I would just like to point out that I asked a question, but received no answer.
I totally agree with Dave on htis one. If IP protection is removed the innovators just would not innovate.
How about this Dave, I spend day and night and think of a business model, that I will buy cotton from Kansas, have shirts produced from them in Ohio and sell them in NYC. But within 2 months of my operations, numerous other businesses who have seen my operations prop up. My profits have been reduced and now all my labor is now going waste.
My question is do you think all individuals who come up with a new business model must be given a monopoly right on that business model for say 20 years? I mean it would definitely incentivize people a lot more to think of new business models than to copy other businesses. And if it results in more businesses then it couldn’t be bad for the society right?
What do you think about it Dave Narby?
@ “Renegade Division”
First, I’m frankly getting tired of dealing with what are in all likelihood “sock puppets”. Please provide a reason as to why you choose to hide behind a pseudonym. After all, we’re not discussing anything approaching sensitive material here.
Second, you “answered” my question with a question.
Dave,
thank you for demonstrating exactly why there is no progress in the debate. Instead of actually participating in a debate, you complain about formal aspects of the debate or express disapproval of your opponents’ moral standards. Both of which, of course, have nothing to do with the actual arguments and are, as an explanation for your actions, unconvincing. A more convincing explanation is cognitive dissonance.
I asked you this several times before, let’s try one more time…
Please answer in three sentences or less:
If IP protection is removed, then how will the innovators in society be compensated?
I am not sure you actually asked me this, I think you asked this other people. But I might be wrong.
I am going to provide an answer that is imprecise, but has the advantage of avoiding confronting assumptions on which you appear to be stuck, thereby hopefully increasing the chance of you realising the objection.
By shifting to business models the profitability of which is not based on the assumption of a monopoly rent.
And, since you appear to be continuing in a debate again, let me ask you something too. I don’t think I formulated it this exact way, because I usually formulate statements rather than questions, but the essence is merely repetitive.
Do you or do you not agree with the following statements:
Enforcement of IP requires the expropriation of physical property.
IP causes both revenues and costs. From the point of view of the whole economy, their difference is zero (or, to rephrase it, it is a purely redistributive policy). In order for a net benefit for a particular market participant, his revenues must exceed his costs. The only apriori method to ensure a net benefit is to eliminate inputs which are affected by IP. The prototype of such a business model is a patent troll.
Any redistributive policy makes some results possible which would be impossible without it. However, this needs to be offset by making some results, which would have been possible without it, impossible.
Prices fluctuate all the time, and so does the profitability of business models. There is no apriori reason why a specific output X should require a specific level of revenue to make it profitable. If X is not produced at a specific time within the context of a specific property rights definition, it means that the production would be an inefficient use of resources at that time.
Causality extends to infinity. No matter how you define property rights, all actions result in some effects that are not covered by property rights.
They will be compensated in the same way that the millions of innovators who do not enjoy government-enforced IP protection are rewarded – with higher profits.
There are many ways of innovating which are not patentable or eligible for copyright or trademark protection. People simply make the innovations, reap the profits, and if anyone copies their ideas (such as recipes and fashion designs) they make new innovations. They make money with their name, reputation, quality and timeliness of product delivery, and service – as opposed to hiding behind armed government goons who force people to either pay a jacked-up price for a product or else do without.
There are also many innovators who could protect their ideas with patents or copyright but who choose not to. Many inventors incorporate their innovations into a product but do not wish to call attention to them by seeking a patent. This is a wise choice for small businesses and especially non-Americans, because they rarely win by seeking damages from large American companies in patent infringment lawsuits in the USA. The US companies’ lawyers play the “foreigner” card in exactly the same way that OJ’s lawyers played the race card – and it works.
Some artists find that they have better sales if they give away recordings of their material, thus benefiting not only from free publicity for their live appearances but paradoxically also causing increased sales of their packaged products. A recent example of this was the old Monty Python TV show, who found that sales of their DVDs skyrocketed after they gave away hi-def versions of their skits on youtube.
Sorry I think that’s more than three sentences, but I think you get my point.
@Surda and “Ohh Henry” (whoever that is)
That is far, far more than three sentences.
I can sum up the justification for IP in three sentences, thusly (with thanks to Silas Bartas):
Innovations that don’t need patents will clearly exist whether or not we have patents. But the the reverse is not true. Where have you shown that patents *as such* prevent innovation?
Or to put it in one sentence: Please explain how repealing IP laws will provide innovators MORE incentive to innovate.
The reason for enforcing brevity is to distill the argument down to it’s essence. If you can’t do it succinctly, I suggest that you don’t quite have it sorted out yet.
BTW, Monty Python did not give up any of their IP. They simply decided to give some away for free, but did not give up their rights to it, and unfortunately is a poor example for your argument.
On the contrary. My reply was exactly three sentences, two of which were merely explaining the background. The reply in narrower sense was one sentence. So, your statement is clearly false.
My other post was an attempt to further the debate, which you as so often in the past, ignored. Therefore, I’m putting it on <a href="http://shurdeek.shurdix.org/tmp/dave-narby-open-questions.html"the list.
IP is a redistributive mechanism. It makes some uses of goods possible at the cost of making others impossible. I actually pointed it out in the post above, phrased in three different ways (expropriation, redistribution, revenue-cost). I can also add scarcity/rivalry as another way of interpreting the phenomenon. I also pointed it out to Silas, and he, just like you, ignored it.
I believe I did that several times over. I don’t want to brag, but I think one of my better qualities is the ability to abstract.
Again, I believe I did that. You on the other hand, have shown no tendency to further the debate. You ignore arguments and prefer to drag the discussion elsewhere, such as by complaining about formal aspects of the debate.
@ Surda
IP is is not a monopoly.
“The term monopoly connotes the giving of an exclusive privilege for buying , selling, working or using a thing which the public freely enjoyed prior to the grant. Thus a monopoly takes something away from the people.
An inventor deprives the public of nothing which it enjoyed before his discovery, but gives something of value to the community by adding to the sum of human knowledge.”
(From Intellectual property and information control: philosophic foundations and contemporary issues, Adam D. Moore)
A monopoly takes away something which existed prior to the monopoly. IP gives temporary exclusive right to the inventor as a privilege for having taken the time and effort to bring something new and useful to society.
I assume we can both agree innovation is a good thing, and we want more of it.
You still have not explained how repealing IP laws will provide innovators MORE incentive to innovate.
@ Surda
For some reason, this got stuck in “waiting for moderation”…
@ Surda
IP is is not a monopoly.
“The term monopoly connotes the giving of an exclusive privilege for buying , selling, working or using a thing which the public freely enjoyed prior to the grant. Thus a monopoly takes something away from the people.
An inventor deprives the public of nothing which it enjoyed before his discovery, but gives something of value to the community by adding to the sum of human knowledge.”
(From Intellectual property and information control: philosophic foundations and contemporary issues, Adam D. Moore)
A monopoly takes away something which existed prior to the monopoly. IP gives temporary exclusive right to the inventor as a privilege for having taken the time and effort to bring something new and useful to society.
I assume we can both agree innovation is a good thing, and we want more of it.
You still have not explained how repealing IP laws will provide innovators MORE incentive to innovate (It does not matter that it is not “your position”. I asked the question several times, and am asking it again!).
> (From Intellectual property and information control: philosophic foundations and contemporary issues, Adam D. Moore)
You and Moore are utterly delusional about how innovation works and what IP law does, the effect it has, and how it functions.
> I assume we can both agree innovation is a good thing, and we want more of it.
Until you begin to understand why and how IP law stifles and limits innovation you won’t understand why it is a monopoly privilege by definition. Or visa versa.
Want more innovation? Get rid of the stupid laws limiting it.
It makes sense not to give money to the Mises Institute if the result will be more resources given to Kinsella’s fallacious rants, while the real job of propagating the works of Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe and others will be done on other sites, while this website remains relevant only as an archive of their works.
Oddly however, propagating the works of Mises, et al. on other sites would only be successful if copyright laws are ignored. How else would you create such a site – by providing nothing but the collected works of Frederic Bastiat and a link to amazon.com so people can buy the more recent books and find out what’s in them for themselves?
Let us know when your IP-friendly economics site is up – we can’t wait to see it!
Hoppe agrees with me 100% on the IP issue, and I created and run his website. Now what do you do?
As for Mises giving resources to me, I rather like to think it’s the other way around. I donate to Mises Institute in a variety of ways and am happy to do so.
This Hoppe, right?
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/
Took a quick look around his website, and there’s nothing there that indicates he holds the same IP Communism beliefs you do. But his CV is offline, so perhaps there’s a publication in there.
I believe I will write him and see if he in fact does agree with you100%. I’m sure he’ll be fine with you claiming that, if it’s true.
Dave, I’m not sure why all this is relevant. Ideas stand on their own merits. This sounds a bit much like an appeal to authority. But, if you insist: see: Hoppe on Intellectual Property.
Update for Hoppeans still clinging to IP:
Hoppe Interview on Anarchy and Intellectual Property.
Dave, it’s hard to argue I’ve not been “honest” in my arguments against IP. I came to to it honestly: as a libertarian who sensed deficiencies in typical arguments for IP–which you just repeat, mainstream-libertarian style. I just gave a 6 week in depth course on Mises Academy on this topic.
There is a reason the young libertarians are all turning anti-IP (see The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism); they see how unlibertarian it is; they are able to see this because the example of digital information is allowing them to examine afresh the fallacious assumptions of the old libertarian generations, whose IP ideas appear to be dying out and replaced, Kuhn-style, by newer, fresher, better ideas.
Why would be you be against honest and open inquiry into this issue? It’s a vexing one and it’s hard to argue that the pro-IP libertarians have mounted a coherent case for it; you guys are all over the map.
I asked you this several times before, let’s try one more time…
Please answer in three sentences or less:
If IP protection is removed, then how will the innovators in society be compensated?
By shifting to business models the profitability of which is not based on the assumption of a monopoly rent.
There is a proverb: repetition is the mother of wisdom. I don’t believe it, but maybe it will work on you.
Explain what those business models are, please.
They do not exist!
Dave,
I strongly believe I have already addressed this in the past directly to you. However, should that not be the case, the most important two are the first mover advantage and reputation increase (that’s actually not my idea, many other economists address it too, e.g. in Against Intellectual Monopoly). There are also others, for example: deception, dumping, cost accounting, product lifecycle management, marketing, bundling, vendor lock-in, vapourware, trusts.
Are you claiming that competition does not exist? For every product there is a first seller on the market. If subsequent sellers were prohibited or unprofitable, that would be the end of competition. The existence of competition flies right in the face of your premise.
I, for example, also have a business that is based on software that I write, however the software is offered for free. Are you claiming that I don’t exist, or that the money that I earn magically materialises on my account?
You write on this blog without being paid. You spend your energy on thinking and hope to achieve a result by providing the output that anyone can benefit from. According you your own assumptions, such a behaviour should not exist. Yet you do it, thus refuting yourself once again.
“Explain what those business models are, please.
They do not exist!”
Of course they do. Part of the fashion industry is not IP protected, and there are plenty of very successful companies out there. I recommend you watch the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
@ Surda
You can strongly believe you provided business models that provide for compensation of innovators without IP all you want, but that does not make it so!
And if you provided these “non-IP” business models in the past, then it should be a simple matter to cut and paste them here, to the benefit of any new readers, yes?
But you cannot, because you have not!
The two questions:
Innovations that don’t need patents will clearly exist whether or not we have patents. But the the reverse is not true. Where have you shown that patents *as such* prevent innovation?
and
Please explain how repealing IP laws will provide inventors MORE incentive to innovate.
@ Augusto
Thanks!
But if you actually listened to the lecture, she points out that “the courts decided long ago that apparel were too utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection”.
…And that entire industry actually relies on *trademark protection* in order to grow it’s brand name and market share!!!
Dave,
It looks like when I admit that I am uncertain about something, that outrages you enormously. It also seems to outrage you when I label your avoidance of answers as running away from debate. This only supports my other claims that instead of arguing, you prefer to metaargue.
Notwithstanding that I explicitly say that I am not sure, turns out my memory in this case was right. I did already answer that question to you.
The evidence exposes your claim as false.
Looks like I have to repeat myself again.
The necessity of offsetting revenues with costs, and the fact that even in colloquial terms, innovations typically build upon previous innovations. Of course, from a strictly scientific point of view, all innovations whatsoever do that apart from the very first on in the causality chain: the first human action performed by our predecessors.
That is not my argument.
You have had months to provide a coherent argument, failed so and show no signs of progress. In the beginning, I was giving you some space in the hope that you are actually genuinely interested in a debate, that you might able to provide some new insights or actually provide a coherent theory of IP, something which I have been, unsuccessfully, challenging IP proponents to do for almost two years. Regrettably however, based on your performance I have to conclude that you are a liar, a coward and a hypocrite. Should you some day overcome these and decide to favour a scientific discourse, I will keep the list of unanswered questions online and you can continue on any of them. I have the master RSS feed for comments subscribed so it’s almost certain I’ll see your replies.
@ Surda
The link you provided does not present any examples of IP-free business models that provide compensation and incentive for inventors/innovators. Did you mis-paste?
Dave:
What on earth are you talking aboout? The “model” is called the “market”. The market (please study how it works, read some Al Ries) compensates the creation of new categories of products via brand recognition. All innovation that the consumer will actually pay for, will be channeled through either brand re-launching or brand creation. TTM (Time to Market) is advantage enough. You don’t need Marxist tenets like “compensate innovation” or “compensate effort” for any of this to happen: it happens every day on Walmart. Please connect the dots in real life.
Dave,
“I invite you to read it, it is an excellent defense of IP and expose’ of those who oppose IP.”
Comma splice.
“Stephen Kinsella.” Stephen <> Stephan. Stephen sounds like Steven. Stephan sounds like Stefan or Stephanie.
As for your “LP” affiliation and pro-IP stance–surely you realize the tide is turning against you and your kind. Young libertarians are less statist, more radical, more principled, more informed by Austrian economics, more sophisticated, and anti-IP. Just ask around. You are clinging to antiquated, statist ideas when you cling to IP.
Maybe he’s not using your name because he thinks he would need to pay you if he did. But then, you complain that he’s not using your name. From the point of view of IP, everyday activities make no sense.
Thank you for correcting your name’s spelling, and my punctuation. I will take pains to improve on both, not that it has any bearing whatsoever on the principles of this argument, and is quite telling to the dearth of your own ideas, as you feel the need to nitpick rather than get to the issues.
You may continue to delude yourself that you are making headway, that is your right.
The principles of IP are as old or older as the principles of Liberty, dating back to the ancient Greeks.
What you propose sir, is IP Communism.
I have established my bona fides as an activist for Liberty, both by helping form a party and exposing myself to public scrutiny and devoting my time and energy as a candidate for public office.
You sir, are no friend of Liberty. You are a coward.
Dave, name calling is so childish. It reflects badly on you and the Staten Island Libertarian Party.
Perhaps you should read some of the literature associated with this topic, rather than one of Stranger’s blog posts (he has to blog, because he can’t win an argument on a level playing field). You’re badly misinformed on the topic, and you’re starting to take things personally, which is not conducive to learning.
He is a coward.
He evades, he deflects, he dodges, he derides, he does everything but openly and honestly answer the questions.
Which questions has he not answered Dave? Where I have asked you questions and not answered, would you say it would be fair for me to categorize you as a coward?
@ “DixieFlatline” (whoever you are, I’m frankly getting tired of dealing people who have questionable need of pseudonyms):
The two questions we have posed to him which are perpetually unanswered are:
Innovations that don’t need patents will clearly exist whether or not we have patents. But the the reverse is not true. Where has Kinsella et. al. shown that patents *as such* prevent innovation?
and
Please explain how repealing IP laws will provide inventors MORE incentive to innovate.
Calm down, Mr. Narby. Try to be civil at all times so we can take your arguments seriously.
What you are doing is falling prey to metaphors. This argument might have merit if “IP” had an existences separate of the physical world. As I explained several times in the past, there is no such thing. There are no abstract existences. Abstractions are merely a method of interpreting the physical world.
The essence of your argument is that if one does not support the monopoly in apples (or any other term, such as “blowpple” that I like to use to demonstrate the problems with IP), one is an apple communist (or a “blowpple” communist). It makes no sense.
First: All rights are clearly abstractions, they are not natural laws such as gravity or inertia.
Second: IP is is not a monopoly, despite it’s erroneous referral to as such. This is actually understandable, since the distinction hasn’t yet been made clear here – so I’ll do it now:
“The term monopoly connotes the giving of an exclusive privilege for buying , selling, working or using a thing which the public freely enjoyed prior to the grant. Thus a monopoly takes something away from the people.
An inventor deprives the public of nothing which it enjoyed before his discovery, but gives something of value to the community by adding to the sum of human knowledge.”
(From Intellectual property and information control: philosophic foundations and contemporary issues, Adam D. Moore)
A monopoly takes away. A patent gives temporary exclusive right to the inventor.
Dave,
I don’t understand what this has to do with a debate. I am pointing out a logical contradiction in your assumptions. I specifically did not make referrals to any specific definition of rights, because that this irrelevant to my objections.
IP is a monopoly, just like blowpple is a monopoly, a government is a monopoly and East India Company was a monopoly.
This definition is completely erroneous, because it is not an economic definition, rather a definition based on metaphors. For example, “public” cannot enjoy anything. Public does not act. Only individuals act. Also, according to this definition, neither the government nor the East India Company were monopolies, showing that the definition, in addition to being erroneous, is also useless.
Economic definitions are for example that by Friedman (also used in Wikipedia):
I can’t find the quote, but the Austrian definition is approximately “monopoly is the use of force to prevent competition”. My own definition is even more abstract: monopoly is when the exercise of mutually inexclusive options covered by one abstract term is considered illegitimate. All three definitions match the examples of monopoly that I provided.
Actually, I tend to agree on this (even though still metaphorical). IP takes away the use of your own physical property. So, according to your own description, it is a monopoly.
Now we are back to the core problem: how can a redistributive policy work without taking from some?
@ Surda
Thank you for your response, I am confident thinking people will draw their own conclusions from that.
Back to the questions:
Innovations that don’t need patents will clearly exist whether or not we have patents. But the the reverse is not true. Where have you shown that patents *as such* prevent innovation?
and
Please explain how repealing IP laws will provide inventors MORE incentive to innovate.
Dave,
looks like I have to try it with repetition:
Any redistributive mechanism needs to offset its gains by some costs. Any innovation made possible by IP needs to be offset by the impossibility of some other action. The only way for IP not to apriori prevent innovation is when the innovator does not have any inputs that are covered by IP (e.g. a patent troll). In all other cases, the result cannot be determined in advance, i.e. the prevention or promotion of any individual innovation is an empirical phenomenon rather than a logical consequence of IP.
I am already being forthcoming by using the term “innovation” in a way that is compatible with your assumptions. Innovation is not a praxeological term so strictly speaking the whole argument is pointless.
That is not my argument and I already said told you that.
@ Surda
You bring up “patent trolls”. Abuse of the IP system is akin to abuse of the tort system. Is a problem of governance, not the principles behind the system, and speaks to the need to reform our IP systems (which you may be surprised to now know that I think they are in dire need of reform). But this attempt at confusing the issue has been tried many times before by Kinsella and others here, and you are doing it once again!
This will do much to advance your argument and win me over: Do you have a *real-life* example where patents *as such* prevent innovation?
Regarding my question: Please explain how repealing IP laws will provide inventors MORE incentive to innovate. I never said it was your argument.
But it’s a real consequence of repealing IP protection that there will be LESS incentive for inventors to innovate (they will no longer be able to invent something, patent it, and then sell/license it), so if you intend to persuade any thinking person, you would do much to make your case by answering that question.
Why do you say that patent trolls are an abuse of IP system? They do exactly what, according to the claims of IP proponents, should be happening. The innovator gets a money without having to produce marketable goods. Also, resources are shifted from one use to the other, exactly as I explain. There is no way around it. If you have patents, you will have patent trolls. Patent trolls are just smart businessmen that understand the notion of costs and revenues, unlike you. You’re probably not a fan of The Apprentice.
I guess there are no companies suing each other over patents and no studies showing the absence of positive effects of IP.
You seem to shift between utilitarian to deontological approach whenever your arguments hits a dead end.
And the proof of this is? Oh yes: your imagination.
“Please explain how repealing IP laws will provide inventors MORE incentive to innovate.”
Who cares if it does or not? Do you understand what begging the question means?
“Young libertarians are less statist, more radical, more principled, more informed by Austrian economics, more sophisticated, and anti-IP. Just ask around. You are clinging to antiquated, statist ideas when you cling to IP.”
Austrian economics =/= Austro-libertarianism. Learn that immediately. Austrian economics, at least as promulgated by Ludwig von Mises, was werfrie and therefore completely empty of any such political statements.
“Please explain how repealing IP laws will provide inventors MORE incentive to innovate.”
It doesn’t matter if it does or if not. Such thinking is utilitarian.
Utilitarians are monsters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster
Comments on this entry are closed.