1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15303/query-for-schulman-on-patents-and-logorights/

Query for Schulman on Patents and Logorights

January 12, 2011 by

I’ve disagreed before with J. Neil Schulman on IP issues — see Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP. Here’s an edited version of a query I put to him on Facebook this morning:

Neil, in your Logorights article, you say (if you’ll forgive me copying your pattern):

if you think creation isn’t essential to the origin of property–then compose your own damn symphonies, write your own damn novels, invent your own damn computer–much less figure out how to program it–design your own damn houses, film your own damn movies, and come up with the damned recipe for bread on your own…”

A couple of questions about this.

1. Your formulation implies you think IP/logorights in inventions (computers etc.) has to do with COPYING others’ ideas. But are you aware that patent law has nothing to do wtih copying? (See Common Misconceptions about Plagiarism and Patents: A Call for an Independent Inventor Defense.)  That even if you independently invent something, you can be sued? Even if you invented it first?

So does this mean you would favor a prior user or independent inventor defense to patent infringement?

If so, are you aware that this would largely gut patent law and subject you to the same “you are an IP commie” excoriations heaped upon me by the pro-IP side?

I.e., are you basically only in favor of copyright, but NOT patent? (In which case… your computer and house examples are inapt, as they are the subject of patent not copyright law.)

Moreover, while is is unlikely for someone to write Alongside Night if they never heard of yours, for most technical innovations this is not so: most of them eventually would get invented by someone. So patenting it and making this public does deprive others of independently inventing the invention. Suppose I would have invented a new mousetrap in 2 years; you patent it and sell it. I learn of it a year earlier than otherwise so now I cannot independently invent. You “spoiled” it for me as when someone reveals the ending of a movie. Why can you use the fact that you gave information to others to restrict their use of it?

2. Ideas, information, logos–are used to guide human action (see Knowledge is Power). Action uses knowledge of causal laws to manipulate scarce means, as guided by such knowledge. I assume you are not opposed to learning: the acquisition of knowledge. So how do you distinguish the learning of information about how others use their property, which you want to prohibit unless there is permission from the “owner,” from learning in general, which presumably you do not want to prohibit?

{ 80 comments }

Silas Barta January 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm

If so, are you aware that this would largely gut patent law

Ever plan to substantiate this one? You really think patents would be irrelevant with an independent inventor defense? Would thousands of lil Pharmas have come out of the woodwork the moment Viagra’s patent was filed, to show how they had independently discovered the same thing?

and subject you to the same “you are an IP commie” excoriations heaped upon me by the pro-IP side?

I don’t think any IP proponents have ever deemed someone a communist for wanting the right to use independently invented ideas. Cite?

(J/K, you still don’t have to take this topic seriously or anything, it’s not really a priority what with all your acolytes.)

Stephan Kinsella January 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm

You are clueless as usual. Of course defenders of patent law would fight tooth and nail from making it like copyright–from making copying an eleemnt of the offense. You have no clue what you are talking about.

As for acolytes–they are not. people are seeing the injustice of IP with their own eyes, their own reason. Why do you think this is? I’m not some pied piper dude.

Anyway an independent inventor defense is still not enough: if I would have invented something in a year independently but now you blab your idea so that I am unable to, why should I be penalized because you opened your trap?

Silas Barta January 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm

You are clueless as usual. Of course defenders of patent law would fight tooth and nail from making it like copyright–from making copying an eleemnt of the offense. You have no clue what you are talking about.

And this has *what* to do with the validity of IP (copyright/patent) as such, again? Cause … that’s what I’m defending, not the latest fads among lobbyists. How about if I attributed every “pro-market” corporate lobbyist’s position to you as if it were what you believed? You probably wouldn’t like it either.

As for acolytes–they are not. people are seeing the injustice of IP with their own eyes, their own reason. Why do you think this is? I’m not some pied piper dude.

You pander to their need to justify their downloading — not hard work, to push someone in the direction of their existing biases. It’s easy to make a man believe something when his Taylor Swift downloading depends on him believing it.

Here’s a test: has any one of your IP fans said, “Hey, Stephan_Kinsella, I like your work, but this particular argument over here isn’t quite right, even though I agree with your conclusion”? None?

Gee, what are the odds that everyone would have the *exact same* thoughts as you on the issue after being informed of your works? What are the odds that instead they reach some point and then just stop thinking about anything that’s “on our side”?

Anyway an independent inventor defense is still not enough: if I would have invented something in a year independently but now you blab your idea so that I am unable to, why should I be penalized because you opened your trap?

Is this really that hard for you to think about? I mean, are you asking me because you can’t figure out basic solutions to problems like that, or because you think it’s some damning argument against all IP? Because it looks like the obvious answer here is that you would be entitled to use the invention earlier than others but later than the first creator — no more complex than any other kind of issue that can arise under common law, including that which involves physical property rights.

Your question is a lot like asking, “why should I be penalized if you reached a plot of land first, but only 1 millisecond before me?”

It’s the kind of thing that you need to follow up with “Or did I just blow your mind???”

Karl Marx January 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm

You pander to their need to justify their downloading — not hard work, to push someone in the direction of their existing biases. It’s easy to make a man believe something when his Taylor Swift downloading depends on him believing it.

Right on, Silas! The doctrine of private property exists only to justify the horrible oppression of the bourgeois against the downtrodden proletariat. Those who oppose IP do so in order to justify their own actions to themselves. This fact alone means their positions do not need to be rationally considered.

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm

*Wonders why he’s bothering*

“Those who oppose IP do so in order to justify their own actions to themselves. This fact alone means their positions do not need to be rationally considered.”

And welcome to the polylogism of Marxism. There is no absolute truth, only “bourgeois” truth or “proletariat” truth. Nevermind the status of polylogism itself, which would only mean anything if it were absolutely, universally true. This is what Marxists don’t bother themselves with, because it distracts from their dazzling cartoon narrative that is human existence (I’ve always wondered why the proletariat were automatically the good guys!).

Of course if poor Marxists weren’t stuck in their labor theory of value (which is apparently true no matter what class you come from) they would see that the “proletariat” standard of living rises with the “bourgeois” standard of living. That the gap between them grows wider does not mean they are moving in the opposite direction.

Stephan Kinsella January 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm

“And this has *what* to do with the validity of IP (copyright/patent) as such, again?”

what is it “as such” Silas? nobody knows. it’s an artificial statute, helloo.

“Cause … that’s what I’m defending, not the latest fads among lobbyists.”

YOu mean, like the copyright clause and copyright act in force for 200 years? got it.

“You pander to their need to justify their downloading”

petty and pathetic psychologizing. these people are sincere. Unlike you.

“Here’s a test: has any one of your IP fans said, “Hey, Stephan_Kinsella, I like your work, but this particular argument over here isn’t quite right, even though I agree with your conclusion”? None?”

Many. One of the greatest of the new IP critics, Peter Surda, is a perfect example. NOt that is is relevant.

“Gee, what are the odds that everyone would have the *exact same* thoughts as you on the issue after being informed of your works? What are the odds that instead they reach some point and then just stop thinking about anything that’s “on our side”?”

good substantive critique, Silas. NOT.

“Your question is a lot like asking, “why should I be penalized if you reached a plot of land first, but only 1 millisecond before me?””

Well, there is only one plot of land. the first guy has a better claim to it than the second. Luckily, information can be replicated and used by millions simultaneously. hellooo

“It’s the kind of thing that you need to follow up with “Or did I just blow your mind???””

No, I am well aware by now of your monomaniacal irrationality. And that’s what it is: pure irrationalism.

Silas Barta January 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm

what is it “as such” Silas? nobody knows. it’s an artificial statute, helloo.

Like property law?

You mean, like the copyright clause and copyright act in force for 200 years? got it.

Or the state-supported property rights have been in force for 200 years? Got it.

Many. One of the greatest of the new IP critics, Peter Surda, is a perfect example. NOt that is is relevant.

Oh, really? Point me to this pointed criticism that you respectfully handled.

petty and pathetic psychologizing. these people are sincere. Unlike you.

Evidence for this?

“Gee, what are the odds that everyone would have the *exact same* thoughts as you on the issue after being informed of your works? What are the odds that instead they reach some point and then just stop thinking about anything that’s “on our side”?”

good substantive critique, Silas. NOT.

How so? Where does this argument break down? Or are you just dismissing it without argument?

Well, there is only one plot of land. the first guy has a better claim to it than the second.

Really? Your support for a right is based on the nearly random factor of who was 1 millisecond ahead? So pretty much *any* method of distributing property rights would be okay, since you are fine with random factors being the determinant? You the mere fact of the allocation is far more important than what it is based on?

No, I am well aware by now of your monomaniacal irrationality. And that’s what it is: pure irrationalism.

Thanks for the serious intellectual engagement.

Peter Surda January 12, 2011 at 5:26 pm

Evidence for this?

You mean your running away cowardly from debates? Nah, does not happen, right?

Peter Surda January 13, 2011 at 6:22 am

Silas,

And this has *what* to do with the validity of IP (copyright/patent) as such, again?

So I guess in your eyes James Randi is also a loser, because his debunking efforts cannot disprove magic as such.

DixieFlatline January 13, 2011 at 3:36 am

Stephan Kinsella
why should I be penalized because you opened your trap?

Your productivity is penalized every time Silas opens his trap aka trolling the Mises Blog, which seems to be his full time, every day project.

Sione January 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm

Silas

And again you act the degenerate fool.This behaviour of yours has been challenged on previous threads. If you are going to make a case for IP as property you are going to need to actually make it. That’s going to take a work of academic schoarship, which it appears you are utterly incapable of producing.

Anyway, knowing that you have few who agree with your emotings (and that includes most of the pro-IP people I correspond with, as they too consider you foolish and berift of anything of value to contribute to th IP debate) the honest thing for you to do would be to head off and set up your own site, “Silas’ theory of IP as property”, featuring any evidence and justifications you reckon you can provide for any of the claims you present. Anyone who is interested in you can visit that site to see what you have to say and ask you questions about your ideas and/or discuss them with you. For you to return here, month after month, year after year, making the same smears, sniping and presenting the same superficial complaints is foolish. It is dishonest. If you really were serious about your theory of IP as property you surely would present a paper about it explaining your position in detail. If you are unwilling to do that, have the common honesty to admit that you have nothing of value to say and pull your head in.

Sione

David Bratton January 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm

“Would thousands of lil Pharmas have come out of the woodwork the moment Viagra’s patent was filed, to show how they had independently discovered the same thing?”

Maybe not, but software patents would certainly be a thing of the past.

J. Neil Schulman January 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm

Stephan,

I’m an advocate neither for current statist copyright laws nor for current statist patent laws. I will not defend them.

My logorights article defines the natural property rights concept in material identity that I’m willing to defend.

Neil

Silas Barta January 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm

@J._Neil_Schulman:

Stephan,I’m an advocate neither for current statist copyright laws nor for current statist patent laws. I will not defend them.

You must be new to how Stephan_Kinsella operates.

If you support any kind of IP, he assumes you support the exact current statist IP system as it currently stands, irrespective of any future clarification of your position.

Peter Surda January 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm

If you support any kind of IP, he assumes you support the exact current statist IP system as it currently stands, irrespective of any future clarification of your position.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet Silas?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:23 am

Please keep using that out of context… It’s hilarious!

Peter Surda January 13, 2011 at 7:20 am

Well, in case you didn’t get it, it’s supposed to be a party of IP proponents, like Silas and you, who use a non-sequitur as their primary working method, and cowardly running away from a debate as a backup plan.

Peter Surda January 13, 2011 at 7:27 am

I meant parody, not party. Apologies, apparently I’m not at my best today.

Peter Surda January 12, 2011 at 5:24 pm

Neil,

I read your article about logorights some time ago, when Stephan was blogging about it before. Actually, I only read a part of it. I also wanted to reply, but couldn’t, because it says any use of it apart from reading is reserved. That alone should prove the absurdity of the concept.

Peter January 12, 2011 at 8:53 pm

I haven’t read it, but if that’s the case, I won’t read it: there’s a serious danger I just may end up agreeing with some of it, and then I’d have to somehow excise it from my brain to avoid making use of any knowledge I might have gained from reading it, and I don’t know how to do that, so it’s safest just to avoid reading it!

J. Neil Schulman January 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm

Apparently you didn’t read the part where I said I did like the idea of delimited fair usage.

Peter Surda January 13, 2011 at 6:47 am

Dear J. Neil Schulman,

first of all, apologies for abbreviating your name in my previous post, that was an error on my part.

Apparently you didn’t read the part where I said I did like the idea of delimited fair usage.

Which you do not define. Let’s see what you say:

It is a utilitarian decision that says that so long as the use of part of a copyrighted work is educational or isn’t a significant enough part to adversely affect the market value of that work, it will be considered that the property owner is going to allow this as a courtesy to the public–whether that owner likes it or not.

You vaguely refer to “educational”, and “significantly affecting market value”. What is that?

Nevertheless, let’s say that I wrote a highly emotional, for example humourous (=non-educational) critique of your works and in the consequence of this, people will stop buying your works (=significantly affect their market value). According to your own, however vague, references, this is not fair use because it does not fulfil any of the criteria you specify. Add to it that it is impossible to know in advance how the critique will affect the market value of your work, and once the critique is out, I have no control over how other people react to it. Should I be responsible for acts of other people then? How come?

It has been my observation that IP proponents typically spent an enormous amount of time on justification of IP, but preciously little on the definition thereof or elementary logic.

You begin, for example, by defining logos by referencing patterns, but do not define what a pattern is. You show examples of patterns, but not a definition. You say instead:

By logos I mean exactly: an order, array, pattern, or form of information which can be imposed upon or observed in a material substance: specifically, a thing’s material identity.

So, taking this very vague sentence, can you provide me an example of something that is not a logos?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:21 am

You will find little use in attempting to reason here, I am afraid.

Kinsella and the various (overwhelmingly anonymous, isn’t that strange!) anti-IP crowd here will settle for nothing less than total IP annihilation!

It reminds me of that famous quote from the Vietnam war: “We had to destroy the village to save it.”

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:24 am

“You will find little use in attempting to reason here, I am afraid.”

Oh so it’s your use of reason that leads you to believe that all blogging here that is opposed to IP is really just being ghostwritten by Kinsella?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 1:02 am

Who are you, again?

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 2:16 am

By pasting the word “Libertarian” on your website, you are misrepresenting yourself wayyy more than I do by using a pseudonym. I don’t specify. At least I don’t outright lie.

“Communism could work” cries the “libertarian”!! Dear lord…

Stephan Kinsella January 13, 2011 at 12:34 am

Yes, we want total IP (patent and copyright) annihilation, along with tax, antitrust law, and drug war annihilation. How unreasonable we are!

Stephan Kinsella January 13, 2011 at 1:05 am

“Kinsella and the various (overwhelmingly anonymous, isn’t that strange!) anti-IP crowd here will settle for nothing less than total IP annihilation!”This unintentionally funny line (no wonder Narby is opposed to principled or radical thinking; he’s apparently some politician type http://www.dave4assembly.com/) — anywya it reminds me of Loren Lomasky’s comments in his review of Hoppe, and Hoppe’s reply to him:http://mises.org/resources/860/Economics-and-Ethics-of-Private-Property-Studies-in-Political-Economy-and-Philosophy-The page 408:

Loren Lomasky was intimidated and angered by my book A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. For one, because the book is more ambitious than its title indicates. “It is,” he laments, “no less than a manifesto for untrammeled anarchism.” … So be it. But so what? As explained in my book but conveniently left unmentioned by Lomasky, untrammeled anarchism is nothing but the name for a social order of untrammeled private property rights, i.e., of the absolute right of selfownership and the absolute right to homestead unowned resources … Only someone advocating the trammeling of private property rights would take offense, as does Lomasky, with my attempt to justify a pure private-property economy.

Jacob January 12, 2011 at 5:32 pm

One of the options with patents is to do away with them entirely.
This will enable people to use and develop systems based on new finding without any legal issues.
Great technology is made and very few are able to use it or obtain it regarding price and they cannot make their own because of the patent.
This keeps people from progressing.

“What about infringing on that company/person business regarding their new technology if there is no patent?”
Simple. We make new laws that keep people from infringing on that business development but allow people to develop their own based on that tech for non commercial reasons unless the tech developed is entirely different.

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:28 am

An admirable attempt, Jacob.

But good luck with attempting to discuss even the common sense reform of IP here.

Nothing short of total destruction of all IP laws will satisfy Kinsella & co.!

Be prepared to meet an onslaught of ad hominem, pejoratives, and a tsunami of fallacies, despite the fact all of them have been refuted here: http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:32 am

“ad hominem, pejoratives, and a tsunami of fallacies”

Oh here comes the logical name drop. Trust me, they’re in there, I’m not just gonna point any of them out.

I already responded in detail to this article, you did not respond to that. I refuted the refutations. Can you refute my refutations?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 1:01 am

“I already responded in detail to this article, you did not respond to that. I refuted the refutations. Can you refute my refutations?”

WOW.

You responded to all 17 points of that article in the comments HERE?

I assume you must have saved a copy, because to do that would have taken quite a bit of time and effort!

Why not repost it so we can look at it again? I’ll keep this page open and refresh it every couple of hours so I don’t miss your response.

Or better yet, why not post it on the web somewhere?

Oh wait…

“Trust me, they’re in there, I’m not just gonna point any of them out.”

…You can’t be BOTHERED. My apologies.

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:05 am

“You responded to all 17 points of that article in the comments HERE?”

No and I didn’t say that.

“…You can’t be BOTHERED. My apologies.”

I think you misunderstood me. I was making fun of you for throwing out a laundry list of logical fallacies that supposedly exist in my posts without presenting a single one. Apparently *you* can’t be bothered.

Stephan Kinsella January 13, 2011 at 1:08 am

Wha’? I discuss several “common sense” reform to improve the statist system you like, here:
http://mises.org/daily/4018

Jim January 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm

Intellectual Property seems to be the adult version of schoolyard tag around here. Every single post on IP produces the same result. The long-winded work of spambots? If not, I hope that the vultures circling the Mises blog, waiting for IP posts to land on, eventually put all the effort to good use. Perhaps instead of nitpicking the same issues again and again, I think the major detractors here should put forth a competing idea. That would be a great thing. That seems to be the major difference – Kinsella has already done so. Am I missing something here? Is there one being referenced? Why bother to waste all the effort on hounding each and every single IP discussion, when you could be creating your own formal argument? It’s obviously important to Silas, here.

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:34 am

“Why bother to waste all the effort on hounding each and every single IP discussion, when you could be creating your own formal argument? ”

Oh, but several have.

FYI, Kinsella has not answered one of the points here: http://strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/

The problem is that they have no interest in reforming IP laws. They are only interested in the total removal of them. Like all fundamentalists, there’s no discussion possible, so the tactics revert to fallacies, pejoratives, and sheer volume of posts.

it will be interesting to see if Mises.org continues to sponsor them with posting privileges, or figures out they are ultimately damaging the image of Austrian economics by associating it with Intellectual Communists.

Stephan Kinsella January 13, 2011 at 12:37 am

“it will be interesting to see if Mises.org continues to sponsor them with posting privileges, or figures out they are ultimately damaging the image of Austrian economics by associating it with Intellectual Communists.”

Given that virtually every major scholar and figure associated with MIses Institute that I’ve talked to about this agrees with my view on IP–Rockwell, French, Tucker, Huelsmann, Hoppe, Klein, DiLorenzo, Gordon, Murphy, Salerno–plus all the smart young people… it seems, er, unlikely they’ll tilt your way, Dave.

IP is dead. Only the husk of its legislated carcass remains, lumbering and threatening us like a zombie. But its days are numbered.

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 1:00 am

Interestingly, in that list you provide, the only one there I’ve contacted (Hoppe) *still has not answered any of my questions*. I’ll give him a bit more time.

But I’m starting to think he can’t answer them. Just like you can’t.

I’ll contact those other ones just to see if in fact that is the case. If so, perhaps it’s time for another proponent of Austrian economics take up the cause. It will certainly be an easier sell without the anarchism.

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:01 am

“It will certainly be an easier sell without the anarchism.”

Ever read Rothbard?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 1:07 am

Yes, “What Has Government Done to Our Money?”

Don’t recall reading about dissolution of the state there, sorry.

…And who are you exactly, again?

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:15 am

“Don’t recall reading about dissolution of the state there, sorry.”

Ahahahaha!! Guys, we’ve had this all wrong. Rothbard *wasn’t* an anarchist!! He *didn’t* coin the term “anarcho-capitalism”. My mind is fully blown.

How about Anatomy of the State. It’s real short.

Or Power and Market. Or the Ethics of Liberty. Or For a New Liberty.

“…And who are you exactly, again?”

Why do you care, again?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 1:39 am

Anarcho-Capitalism /= Anarchism.

Easy enough mistake to make I guess, what with “Anarch” being in both terms and all… Glad I could clear that up for you.

Also, Rothbard didn’t necessarily think copyright was wrong. Perhaps it’s best if you find another person to use as an example.

I care about who you are because I don’t trust you not to be a sock puppet. It speaks to credibility. Anyone who cares to know who I am can find out in a click. But you hide behind a pseudonym.

Easy enough for you to clear up, yes?

But I’ll bet good money you won’t.

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:50 am

“Anarcho-Capitalism /= Anarchism.”

Anarcho-capitalism is a specific type of anarchism, which means Rothbard was an anarchist. You are being blatantly misleading here. Rothbard was called the “enemy of the state”. The only kind of anarchism that has ever been supported here is anarcho-capitalism. You said earlier that the sale will be easier without the anarchism, which can only mean anarcho-capitalism (the only kind of anarchism discussed here). And yet, it sounds like, you don’t have a problem with *that*.

“Easy enough mistake to make I guess, what with “Anarch” being in both terms and all… Glad I could clear that up for you.”

It was not a mistake, anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism, not a different thing. Why the hell call it “anarcho”-anything if it’s not a type of anarchism!?

“Also, Rothbard didn’t necessarily think copyright was wrong. Perhaps it’s best if you find another person to use as an example.”

An example for what? I asked if you had read Rothbard cause he makes the sale of anarchism real, real easy.

“I care about who you are because I don’t trust you not to be a sock puppet. It speaks to credibility.”

Ahh, yes, the “ad hominem epistemology.” The truthfulness of a proposition is a function of who utters it. It was Rothbard of all people that relentless attacked the fallacy of “great thinkers”.

“Anyone who cares to know who I am can find out in a click. But you hide behind a pseudonym.”

Who’s hiding? I don’t have a blog, I blog here.

“Easy enough for you to clear up, yes?”

My name is Danny Coleman, I am a senior undergraduate studying physics at the University of Virginia. Now you can shut the hell up about it.

“But I’ll bet good money you won’t.”

Guess someone’s got a present coming to them.

Peter January 13, 2011 at 5:48 am

I care about who you are because I don’t trust you not to be a sock puppet. It speaks to credibility. Anyone who cares to know who I am can find out in a click. But you hide behind a pseudonym.

Most people on the Internet “hide” behind a pseudonym…as they’re recommended to do by all the so-called experts on TV, etc.. If he called himself “David Johnson” instead of “sweatervest”, would that make a difference? Would he be less likely to be a sock puppet? (Not that there’s any reason to believe he is in the first place, aside from paranoia).

[And, no, we can't find out who you are in a click. Maybe we can find out something about someone calling himself "Dave Narby", but we can't easily verify that that is in fact his real name, or that the person posting here using that name and web site is in fact the person referred to by the web site; anyone can type any name and URL they like. If I assume you really are the Dave Narby named at that site, I suppose there's enough information there for me to track you down if I really wanted to...but then I'd probably be inclined to strangle you or something, so it's probably better if I don't...which is why you're advised NOT to give out identifying information to random psychos on-line!]

Stephan Kinsella January 15, 2011 at 8:56 am

Why would he answer your questions? You should consider your actions and decide if you want to be a pest.

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:39 am

“Kinsella has not answered one of the points here:”

I’ve answered several.

“fundamentalists”…”Intellectual Communists”

Childish.

“it will be interesting to see if Mises.org continues to sponsor them with posting privileges”

So the answer is to put the big boot of censorship on the face of ideas you don’t want to confront?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:50 am

You answered several? Where?

I love how you knee-jerk to censorship.

And Kinsella has a website. He posts whatever he wants there.

Are you claiming editorial control is censorship?!

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:55 am

It was a few threads back. I’ll try and find it if you’re too lazy to do it yourself.

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:09 am

It was a direct response to one of your posts, and you apparently didn’t have anything to say at the time…

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:28 am
sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:58 am

“Are you claiming editorial control is censorship?!”

You are not the one in control of this blog. You are “hoping” that the blog shut out ideas you don’t like. I am not denying mises.org’s right to control its own blog, but they apparently don’t want us to go away. You just want them to want us go away.

Sione January 12, 2011 at 9:31 pm

Jim

“Perhaps instead of nitpicking the same issues again and again, I think the major detractors here should put forth a competing idea.”

That would be a very good idea. That is, in essence, what I asked Silas to do.

“That seems to be the major difference – Kinsella has already done so.”

That he has, and it IS a major difference between Dr Kinsella and his detractors. What is required from the opponents of Dr Kinsella is for them to produce a complete exposition of their “IP is property” ideology complete with detailed explanation of its derivation and validation. They need to demonsrate that their derivation is valid at each and every step of the chain of thinking and identification it relies upon. At that stage it is possible for the rest of us to read and evaluate. Questions can be asked and clarifications sought.

“Why bother to waste all the effort on hounding each and every single IP discussion, when you could be creating your own formal argument?”

Why indeed. Perhaps the fact of the matter is that there is no formal argument available.

An example (since you bring him up), I challenged the Silas person to quit sniping and actually present a formal argument. Given that he’s been on this pro-IP mission of his for some considerable and extended period of time, the suspicion is that he aint up to it. He presents nothing because he has nothing to present.

” …vultures circling the Mises blog, waiting for IP posts to land on..”

An apt description that is.

Why hang around somewhere you disagree with the ideas being presented and analysed? Why loiter where you have nothing to contribute save some smearing, sniping, emoting and the like? Again, these folk (Silas included) need produce an academic treatise disclosing their ideas in critical detail. Get it published or stick it on a web site somewhere. Then those who are interested can go take a look and examine it…

Sione

J. Neil Schulman January 12, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Silas Barta January 12, 2011 at 11:52 pm

I’m sure you’ll get a reasoned, thoughtful reply to such ideas here. *rolls eyes*

sweatervest January 12, 2011 at 11:53 pm

I guess this is the first one.

Edgaras January 13, 2011 at 12:11 am

classic :D

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:17 am

…Indeed.

Anthony January 13, 2011 at 12:39 am

So what is your stance on independent inventors?

Colin Phillips January 13, 2011 at 3:44 am

Hi Neil,

Thanks for posting these. I’m not sure that I agree with all the points you made.
If I understand your position, you say that when you write a novel, you imprint a stack of paper and ink with your “logos”, but that stack of ink and paper is still your property, and you are still free to sell the rights to that stack of ink and paper as you see fit. In this case, you choose to divide up the rights to use that stack of ink and paper as follows: Your publisher and no-one else is, for a fee, allowed to copy that “logos” onto other stacks of ink and paper, and sell them. However, when the publisher sells these copies, all of which contain the same “logos”, they are only allowed to sell the rights to, say, absorb the “logos” in these stacks into their brains for personal entertainment purposes (specifically, reading), but not to use that “logos” in their stacks of paper or their brains for any other purpose. Is that a fair assessment?

If so, I don’t think I agree with your division of the rights argument – it’s not that I think you are not allowed to do so, I doubt your (or anyone else’s) ability to do so. It seems that you think you have made one piece of property into two, the stack of ink and paper, and the pattern they incorporate. I see it as one piece of property – a mixture of ink and paper, made (subjectively) more valuable to the publisher by your work in arranging the ink in a particular pattern. I don’t think it follows that that pattern is in itself a piece of property, separable from the ink and paper. By illustration, if you do not copy or memorise the pattern, and you sell the paper and ink to me, have you not lost the pattern as well? You can’t ask me to take the ink and paper, but leave the pattern behind.

Therefore, as I see it, when you “sold the pattern” to your publisher, you actually only rented the manuscript out for the purposes of copying the pattern onto other stacks of ink and paper, for a fee. When that manuscript was returned to you, and the fees paid, your rights in the patterns of the copies ended, as those new stacks of paper were never yours, they belonged to the publisher. If the publisher failed to pay you your fee, or return your manuscript to you, then I feel that just restitution would allow you to claim those books, but this is a matter for contract law, not logorights.

I hope I have understood your position, and also that I have not insulted you. These are just my first impressions upon reading your articles – I will reread them at a later stage and see whether I missed anything. Please feel free to correct me if I have mischaracterised your position.

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:34 am

Hey Sione, what was that business you said you were involved in again?

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:41 am

Ad hominem?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:16 am

The gutter tactics of the Anti-IP crowd here gets lower every day!

At some point here Mises.org is going to figure out that the Intellectual Communists are just that, and extremely poor ambassadors for Austrian economics.

Austrian economics /= Anarchism

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:22 am

“The gutter tactics of the Anti-IP crowd here gets lower every day!”

“the Intellectual Communists are just that”

Wait, you are here to just threaten that you won’t make donations, right?

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 12:41 am

No.

I’m here to let people know that some Libertarians think intellectual Communism is laughable, and that serious people consider both Austrian economics and IP important.

Otherwise they might associate Austrian economics with Intellectual Communism and conclude Austrian economics (and Libertarians) are seriously deranged and not worthy of further consideration.

BTW, you got a real name, Mr./Ms. “sweatervest”?

It’s interesting that the pro-IP types clearly identify themselves, but most of the opponents hide behind pseudonyms (but I’m sure there’s a very good and logical reason for this).

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 12:52 am

“I’m here to let people know that some Libertarians think intellectual Communism is laughable”

If you had a point to make you wouldn’t keep hiding behind McCarthian red scares. Does anyone care what you think is laughable?

“and that serious people consider both Austrian economics and IP important.”

Sure, whoever you decide is a “serious person” is one.

“Otherwise they might associate Austrian economics with Intellectual Communism and conclude Austrian economics (and Libertarians) are seriously deranged and not worthy of further consideration.”

No, intellectual property is probably *the* biggest reason why so many people, especially in colleges, abhor the very concept of private property and see it as an unjustifiable and unfair claim to restriction of use of things that “belong to everyone”. Marxists love to talk about all the disasters intellectual property has caused and how it makes no sense that people are not allowed to download music off the internet or play a Beatles song in front of some people. They use that as a basis to condemn private property in general because they fail to see that the two concepts are antagonistic and irreconcilable. Most of the time when I hear someone trash “property”, they have a lot to say about “owning ideas”. So don’t put yourself up on a pedestal because you approach this differently than we do.

“It’s interesting that the pro-IP types clearly identify themselves, but most of the opponents hide behind pseudonyms”

Oh so obviously we’re all just Kinsella double posting. This is a dirty tactic you are using, because there is nothing I can do to convince you I am not him. I could tell you my name, and you could just say “you made that up”. This is very childish. I’ll just point out you are doing whatever you can to fill up posts without offering any insight what-so-ever to the problems at hand (I’ll admit I am doing that here as well, but only in response to you).

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 1:44 am

Sorry you have such a negative reaction to Communism. It’s actually a fine system of government, if practiced according to it’s principles. The problem is in it’s application.

But if someone is a Communist, whether with regards to IP or physical property, I’ll point that out if it’s important to the discussion.

And it’s easy enough for you to clear up who you are. After all, anyone who cares can find out who I am with a click.

It would certainly help your credibility. Why do you protest so much?

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:59 am

“Sorry you have such a negative reaction to Communism. It’s actually a fine system of government, if practiced according to it’s principles. The problem is in it’s application.”

Aaand you call yourself a libertarian. Did you hear that, folks? Mr. “Those damn IP communists” apparently doesn’t have a problem with communism. So what, then, was the point of repeatedly condemning us for being “communists”?

You have either never read Human Action or you absorbed nothing from it. That you would come here and accuse us of soiling the good name of Mises with our “IP communism”, only to come out saying “communism could work if we do it right” is nothing short of astounding. The *whole purpose* of Mises’ career was to demonstrate that economic calculation under socialism (including communism) is impossible, and there is no such thing as a planned economy, only planned chaos. You just disconnected yourself entirely from the Austrian school of economics with this remark. No Austrian thinks communism could work if done right. Mises himself said “even in a society populated by angels socialism would still fail”.

What are you doing here? Seriously? What is someone who thinks “communism could work if done right” done on a blog named after the person who dedicated his entire life to showing that communism can ever work, ever!?

“But if someone is a Communist, whether with regards to IP or physical property, I’ll point that out if it’s important to the discussion.”

Ohh right you’re not using “IP Communist” as a pejorative term…

“And it’s easy enough for you to clear up who you are. After all, anyone who cares can find out who I am with a click.”

Scroll up some.

“It would certainly help your credibility.”

No it would not. The validity of the things I post here is completely independent of the fact that I am the one who posted them. An argument is an argument.

“Why do you protest so much?”

Because it’s a waste of everyone’s time here. Take your accusations of us harming Mises’ namesake, ghostwriting for each other, and pretending to own businesses back to the schoolyard where it belongs.

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 2:13 am

Well I made an embarrassing typo! When I said “communism could ever work, ever”, I of course meant “communism could *never* work, ever”

:p

DixieFlatline January 13, 2011 at 3:41 am

Oh wow, Dave Narby the libertarian is pro-communism. That’s priceless.

Peter January 13, 2011 at 6:06 am

Dave Narby is not libertarian. He describes himself as “moderately Libertarian Centrist”. Which, whatever it is, clearly isn’t anything like “libertarian”. All political types describe themselves as “centrist” (presumably to avoid being thought of as unelectable “extremists”). Kim Jong Il, if he were standing for election against opponents, would describe undoubtedly himself as a “moderate centrist” of whatever party.

AskanIPquestion January 13, 2011 at 12:26 pm

“Sorry you have such a negative reaction to Communism. It’s actually a fine system of government, if practiced according to it’s principles. The problem is in it’s application.”

Ah communism, nothing for the common people, everthing for the leaders…

“It would certainly help your credibility.”

Your credibility just went to the moon. ROFL

AskanIPquestion January 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm

Why don’t you answer questions?

You said about IP: “That all depends depends on whether or not they formed a government and passed a law about it.”
http://blog.mises.org/15290/copyright-promotes-the-progress-of-arts/comment-page-1/#comment-750928

My question:

“IP depends on the existence of governments and government-regulated laws? Without them there is no IP?”

Answer that and try not to avoid it cowardly.

james b. longacre January 13, 2011 at 1:34 am

Ideas, information, logos–are used to guide human action…

i wonder how many people buy fake diamonds and tell others or dont deny that it is a fake diamond so other will think they are wearing a real diamond…status reasons i suppose.

if you have clothing that has a logo representative of a company and wasn tproduced by that company would you care if it did what you wanted? certainly some would. if the logoed thing from the actual logo originator is important then noone should get in the way of that…if having an identical logo on something not made by the originator i dont know that that would be too much of a problem if peopel are alerted to that fact.

Sione January 13, 2011 at 1:48 am

Narby

I didn’t say what my business is. I’d have explained a little of what I am up to had you bothered to specifically ask instead of making fun of my name and on that basis dismissed everything I posted for you to consider. That’s worse than rude, it is intellectually degenerate. Given this behaviour from you, your accusations of “ad hominem, pejoratives, and a tsunami of fallacies” directed at others, are hypocritical.

Narby, the challenge for you is as outlined in my post above.

“What is required from the opponents of Dr Kinsella is for them to produce a complete exposition of their “IP is property” ideology complete with detailed explanation of its derivation and validation. They need to demonsrate that their derivation is valid at each and every step of the chain of thinking and identification it relies upon. At that stage it is possible for the rest of us to read and evaluate. Questions can be asked and clarifications sought.”

That’s the challenge that you face. It isn’t a trivial undertaking either. You’d need to prepare and deliver work of high academic quality (a published paper or several). Then you’d need to face critical examination, many questions and thorough on-going analysis of what you’d done by specialists and practitioners in the field, as well as others who are interested/involved with IP matters. It is during the defense of your work that any weaknesses or possible errors would be highlighted. Likely it’d take some time for you to develop an accurate, rational and logical exposition of your system (being charitable and assuming that such can be done and that you are actually up to doing it). There is no guarantee of success. Still, that’s exactly the challenge Dr Kinsella has had to satisfy. Now it’s up to you to do the same (assuming you want to be taken seriously and are not just some weenie seeking argument for the sake of beeing an argumentative weenie)- outline your complete position and publish it, if you can.

Sione

Dave Narby January 13, 2011 at 2:51 am

I know you didn’t say what your business was. That’s because I flat out accused you of lying about it, and I am waiting for you to prove you actually are engaged in it.

I also wasn’t making fun of your name. I was pointing out that you are hiding behind a pseudonym for no known good reason. Seems as if you were proud of your anti-IP stance, you wouldn’t mind your name showing up in a search or two related to it.

Frankly, this isn’t an intellectual exercise for me at all. It’s a practical one, and I don’t need the approval of academics to make my case to the public, quite to the contrary.

Sione January 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Narby

My name is Sione Vatu and you owe me an apology and a retraction. You have debased yourself as a rude person of low intellect.

The fact of the matter is that you can accuse whomever you like of whatever you like. Such accusations are irrelevant to the subject of enquiry here. In the end all you are doing is engaging in an evasion.

You have now provided first hand evidence to any reader of the blog that you lack the capability to deal with the topic of IP in a rational, logical manner. Rather you prefer to smear and make personal attack. Fine, that’s your personal attribute and your self-debasement. Nevertheless, the challenge of deriving and presenting your “system” of thought (regarding IP) remains one for you to face up to. That you can’t is a sign of your intellectual failure.

Sione

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:51 pm

Sione,

Dave Narby is a politician. He makes a living off of doing stuff like this. Attacking people’s “credibility”, portraying his opponents as satanic morons, etc. He asks irrelevant questions and when people refuse to answer them because it’s pointless, he just repeats the same question and quips, “What’s the big deal”. He also litters multiple threads with the same irrelevant and pointless question in some childish attempt to defame these threads. Standard politicking.

Ever watched a debate between candidates or seen a campaign ad?

Sione January 13, 2011 at 6:38 pm

Sweatervest

Yes. Occasionally I have suffered the misfortune to see a bit of that stuff. Sheer emptiness…

Thanks for the update on Narby. I’d originally guessed he might be merely young and inexperienced. Seems like the evasive politician characterisation is more likely to be the accurate assessment. Oh well.

Sione

sweatervest January 13, 2011 at 1:55 pm

“That’s because I flat out accused you of lying about it, and I am waiting for you to prove you actually are engaged in it.”

Prove that you’re actually Dave Narby. Considering that you are about as far away from libertarianism as one can get, and yet link to a website with that very word plastered all over the background, I have a very good reason to believe you are someone else ghostwriting under Narby’s name.

I am flat out accusing you of lying about who you are.

“Frankly, this isn’t an intellectual exercise for me at all.”

You don’t need to tell us that.

“It’s a practical one, and I don’t need the approval of academics to make my case to the public, quite to the contrary.”

Yep, you’re not interested in truth, you’re interested in getting votes so you can stay in office and continue to leech off of productive individuals. You apparently have no problem preaching false doctrines, as long as you can do it as a demagogue, wow the masses and get a big fat stolen paycheck for it.

I honestly never expected you to admit that you have no interest in approaching this rationally.

AskanIPquestion January 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm

“Seems as if you were proud of your anti-IP stance, you wouldn’t mind your name showing up in a search or two related to it.”

Only a stupid person could only think about it that way. There are millions of reasons why anyone wants to pick a nickname and use it.

But who am I telling this. You also find communism attractive…

“…Communism. It’s actually a fine system of government, if practiced according to it’s principles. The problem is in it’s application.”

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: