Did Galt need to impose his law upon all people whether they agreed to or not? Sounds too authoritarian to me.

Yep, but in a completely different form from what is called “copyrights” today – he was totally against any enforement of copyrights paid for by the taxpayers.

The contractual obligation not to share the contents of a book/movie/etc made at the time (and as a condition) of sale of that book/dvd/etc is perfectly compatible with libertarian principles. So are technological copy controls – if they’re not rammed down consumers’ throats by the force of law.

The modern copyrights are nothing like voluntary contracts. They are imposed automatically by the law, even on parties which didn’t agree to anything. And the costs of enforcement are bourne not by “owners” of content, but by everyone, including people who had nothing to do with each particular piece of “IP”.

Thus, saying “Rothbard liked copyrights” presuming that he meant present-day definition of the term is simply bending the truth beyond any recognition.

If he were an inventor I expect he would have liked patents.

Most real-life inventors hate patents. Here’s one of the well-known inventors (practically anyone in US uses his inventions) wrote:

http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/patents/patents.html

Oh, and I do have patents in my name (obtained for the sake of keeping venture capitalists happy, never enforced) – and I can sign under every word of what he wrote.

If he were an inventor I expect he would have liked patents.

In response to your question of how you would collect ROI on your invention without patent or copyright. You mentioned that there is nothing preventing the engineer you sold a licence to make your product from copying it. Well, YES THERE IS. In such a situation, it could easily be stipulated in the contract that he is not allowed to do so. It’s sort of like a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

I’m a slow learner sometimes, so forgive me if what I’m about to say has been obvious to many of you for a while. It occurred to me that the long debates about the minutae of patent law, innovation, and monopolies was all a smokescreen on the part the anti-IP mob. They really don’t care about those issues; they care about promoting anarchism. They don’t care about innovation at all.

This is untrue. Qua libertarian we are in favor of protecting individual rights–property rights. Whether we are anarcho or minarchist libertarians. Sure we “care” about innovation, but not qua libertarian; and we are not utilitarians so we do not start wtih the question of: waht rights do we have to implement to make sure there is enough innovation. Surely you are at the least aware that there are some principled libertarians out there who are not pragmatic, unprincipled utilitarian compromisers and tinkerers, right?

Kinsella has made that very clear. If within the rules of the game for an anarchist state, someone could invent a method to accomplish exactly what government patents and copyrights do, they would have no problem with that method. The only issue they care about is getting rid of the government.

Why, no; the IP debate is about what property rights there are, not about who is going to enforce them. A minarchist libertarian should, in my view, recognize *that* IP is not a genuine property right, and that *therefore* the state’s job, which is to enforce genuine property rights, should not enforce IP rights.

Kinsella admits he doesn’t know how innovation might take place in anarchism, but he has enormous faith that it would be better than under the current system.

Actually, no; and this is why I resisted your questions about ROI. Because then you people turn around and want to assume we are all a bunch of ends-justify-the-means, utilitarian pragmatists.

This illustrates a disadvantage that we capitalists face in discussing any subject with anarchists. We are constrained by reality; anarchist are constrained only by their imagination and faith in anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalists are of course capitalists.

Kinsella admits he doesn’t know how innovation might take place in anarchism, but he has enormous faith that it would be better than under the current system. This illustrates a disadvantage that we capitalists face in discussing any subject with anarchists. We are constrained by reality; anarchist are constrained only by their imagination and faith in anarchism.

The issue is very important, because if the methods you mentioned, trade secrets, first mover, etc., are insufficient to persuade entrepreneurs (profit seekers) to invent new products, then we are left with charity from philanthropists and government spending as sources of funds for research. Governmental power will increase.

A few replies. First, you are implicitly saying rights are defined in terms of consequences. Second, you seem to assume it’s “either-or”–that either there is, or is not, “invention of new products.” Of course, there will always be innovation no matter what IP laws exist. Your argument then is reallly, there will be MORE innovation with patnet laws, and this EXTRA amount of innovation is worth the cost of the system. But you don’t show this to be the case.

It’s interesting to me that anti-IP people use examples like toothepaste in discussing new inventions, while pro-IP people use pharmaceuticals and high tech. The distinction isn’t trivial. The investment in R&D for most consumer products is relatively small,

Do you think the research in toothpaste is trivial? Are you kidding?

Being the first mover, developing internal expertise, keeping trade secrets, reputation, etc., might be fine for jello, but I doubt it would be sufficient protection for someone spending $1 billion on a new cancer drug or a jet engine.

Oh. Well if you doubt it, I guess that means patent laws are justified. Vas?

David C:

This is nonsense. The IT industry in particluar is defined by blatent disrespect for copyrights and patents. People only use the toothpate examples to dumb it down for others who clearly don’t get it.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Yes and I also used it because someone asked how will there be an ROI. My answer is that we cannot konw what market mechanisms will develop if we have freedom. This frightens some people who want some certainty for some reason. I remember a long time ago seeing a documentary, some commie person was shown a western style supermarket and was baffled at all the types of toothpaste available. So my point was, if there was one reliable toothpaset made under communismand you proposed to abolish it, then soem commie might say, “but but what toothpaste will there be under this free market system?” the answer would be, who knows, let’s try it and see–it can’t be predicted ahead of time.

averros:

Anyone who was around in the high-tech industry for a while knows that if all patent rights were enforced THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY to speak of.

This could well be right. It’s sort of like communism/socialism: it was never done 100%, because if it was, everyone would die. Same with patents: they are enforced to a degree, and it causes a big drag on technology and innovation and efficiency, but if they were really enforced 100%, my God it would be terrible. THe IP advocates get away with advocating IP because it’s not enforced 100% and the costs are kind of hidden.

I do know there are lots of high-tech startups who never make it because they can’t get funding because of the danger of patent lawsuits in some crowded field.

So nobody bothers. The patent litigation risk is simply treated as a cost of doing business.

Right; so of course, at the margin, some companies that would have made it, don’t. Thanks.

Small companies are generally below the radar, the large ones acquire patent portfolios they use as a deterrent (in a “mutual assured destruction” fashion). What is in those patents is completely irrelevant.

Er… right, so you have tons of wasted resources going towards defensive innovation and patenting… what’s the point?

Patents are for losers. I have yet to meet an actual engineer who made his fortune because of his patents. Does anyone know one personally?

Sure, there are a few.

It is absolutely impossible to check any design for non-infringement against dozens millions patent claims.

So nobody bothers. The patent litigation risk is simply treated as a cost of doing business. Small companies are generally below the radar, the large ones acquire patent portfolios they use as a deterrent (in a “mutual assured destruction” fashion). What is in those patents is completely irrelevant.

Patents are for losers. I have yet to meet an actual engineer who made his fortune because of his patents. Does anyone know one personally?

So capital markets is the best place to see what happens without IP laws.

Is your motivation for abolishing IP protection the expectation of gaining something for nothing?

In that case, I’d say you are the one who is misinformed. The unintended consequences of living in your world would bring much, if not nearly all, of the innovation you hope to mooch to a standstill.

RogerM’s comments are quite insightful.

RogerM: It’s interesting to me that anti-IP people use examples like toothepaste in discussing new inventions, while pro-IP people use pharmaceuticals and high tech.

This is nonsense. The IT industry in particluar is defined by blatent disrespect for copyrights and patents. People only use the toothpate examples to dumb it down for others who clearly don’t get it. In fact, one of the defining moments in the IT industry was when IBM and Intel lost their big lawsuits over reverse engineering the BOIS and the manufacture of slot compatable devices. ( that they thought they had IP rights over) This created an explosion in the market place and the PC revolution was born. Also, anybody can cleary see that the internet wasn’t held back by concern over IP rights.
Almost all the internet protocools were written for free, and the cutting edge today is in the Linux space, while Windows is stuck in the mud till Vista comes out, and all the other UNIX’s are dying – by own admission. Also, notice how it is TCP/IP and Ethernet based and not Novell networks based or Token-Ring based??? Also, I live in San Diego with some of the worlds biggest biotech industries. For the first 10 years it centered around patetns and got nowhere, then the scientists starting revolting and sharing gene sequences and research, and now, funny enough the industry is taking off.

Win: I can see it now. Libertarian utopia, where everyone is mooching, copying, reverse engineering, and otherwise stealing what others have done the legwork on.

You are also wrong and don’t know what you’re talking about. In this utopia, for every $1 worth of information I loose control over, I gain $100 million dollars of information for free. So it is worth it for people to participate from a service based side, “mooching” or not.

I read a certain book once. I think it was called “Atlas Shrugged”. The central character invented a revolutionary motor that used the static electricity in the air as the energy to make it work. He decided to keep it from the world rather than let his idea be stolen from him and used without his permission.

It seems to me that maybe that whole book was about the importance of enforcing property rights of the mind as well as physical resources.

Hmmmmm…

I really don’t understand how anyone who believes in the importance of assigning and enforcing property rights can be so communistic on this subject.

I can see it now. Libertarian utopia, where everyone is mooching, copying, reverse engineering, and otherwise stealing what others have done the legwork on.

Sounds like a bad dream to me. Count me out.

The issue is very important, because if the methods you mentioned, trade secrets, first mover, etc., are insufficient to persuade entrepreneurs (profit seekers) to invent new products, then we are left with charity from philanthropists and government spending as sources of funds for research. Governmental power will increase.

It’s interesting to me that anti-IP people use examples like toothepaste in discussing new inventions, while pro-IP people use pharmaceuticals and high tech. The distinction isn’t trivial. The investment in R&D for most consumer products is relatively small, so we probably don’t have to worry about people coming up with new ones. But the investment in R&D for new cancer drugs and fuel cells is enormous, requiring a great deal of cost/benefit calculation.

Being the first mover, developing internal expertise, keeping trade secrets, reputation, etc., might be fine for jello, but I doubt it would be sufficient protection for someone spending $1 billion on a new cancer drug or a jet engine.

The reason I bring up the problem is that if an entrepreneur can’t earn an ROI on his R&D, even though a strong demand for his invention exists, then something is wrong with the laws that should be protecting property rights. It’s more likely than not, especially in cases requiring very high expenditures on R&D, that the methods you mention will be insufficient to provide an ROI on R&D, even in the face of strong demand for his invention. In those cases, we will be left to the mercy of philanthropists and the government to do the heavy lifting in research. That describes the world before IP laws. Kings and nobility subsidized artwork and inventions. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michaelangelo weren’t entrepreneurs; they were courtiers. Only with the advent of capitalism and IP laws did entrepreneurs take the lead in buying artwork and financing inventions.

If the lack of IP laws results in an entrepreneur being unable to earn an ROI on his invention in the face of strong demand for his product, then maybe there is something wrong in the logic of the anti-IP movement.

Congress has extended the copyright protections to be decades (at the behest of Disney for protecting Mickey Mouse). Some people think that is bad, but frankly I see no problem granting infinite copyrights. After all, what if the government decided that home ownership would end after 30 years and your house was subject to squatting? I believe that limiting copyrights is the travesty of government interference.

But it’s not a limitation; it’s just a non-infinite grant. The grant itself is at issue. If they were to stay out of it, there would be no copyright statute in the first plac.e Can you really imagine copyright as understood now developing in the common law?

Conceptually, we could argue that by issuing patents we are granting (at least temporarily) the homesteading of a process of doing things to the first person to discover how to do them.

Not true. You don’t have to be the first. That is not a requirement. NOt the first to file, nor the first to invent. Who, then? It’s complicated. But it ain’t natural.

This differs subtly from a copyright. Copyright allows for everyone to use processes to produce a variety of end results, but grants them exclusive rights to their unique version.

And more; to a bundle of rights related to it. The right to reproduce that work; as well as derivative rights.

Patents grant a person control over the process of producing end results (i.e. property, intellectual or otherwise).

It covers both devices, and processes. Not just processes.

In the end I have come around full circle to Rothbard’s proposal: if you invent a process for creating something, you can copyright the actual property you create (intellectual or tangible), but you cannot claim title to the process for making it (because a process is not substantial, and a patent is attempting to violate others right to use their property).

I think you are confused. R’s idea was you could stamp a device that was based on your invention, copyright, and this prevents the buyer from copying that idea. Or maybe not. His reasoning was skimpy.

EG. I have no incentive to do R&D without patents -> I have no incentive to grow cotton without slaves on the plantation.

Disproving coipyrights is a little harder, but most of the basic copyright justifications can also be tested like above. That will at least get rid of the most annoying ones like … I have no incentive, I put effort/costs into it … public wealth and commerce rest on it ….

BTW, the fact that the pro-copyright arguments that are the most easy to disprove are also the ones being shoved down our throats the hardest – should be telling. In addition, the fact that copyrights clash time and time again with other liberties and privacy rights just as society enters the information age should be telling too.

I assume that this would not apply to an actual work, like a book?

Thanks in advance.