You did not answer the questions as you were requested to do. What you have done though, is demonstrate with certainty that you are a liar. Shame on you.

Sione

Person: “I don’t know.”

Then why did you state, in response to my statement, a reply that hinged upon the absolute of “all airspace”?

Person: “When did I say “no IP rights leads to zero innovation”? When did I say nobody used the Linux operating system?”

You didn’t. You stated that only through restrictive IP does innovation occur. I countered with example after example of innovation occurring without restrictive IP.

You have been asserting that restrictive IP is beneficial, asserting that it is a requirement for innovation to occur that restrictive IP to be enforced, consistently arguing in favor of patent and copyright.

What you have not done, what you have specifically avoiding doing, is supporting your assertion with something like a logical argument. You consistently demand of those who decry the abuses of IP to “prove” something, yet as above when counter examples are given to you you dismiss them as some kind of personal attack.

Since you are arguing for the existence of coercive legislation, it is up to YOU to provide something to support your assertion, to demonstrate that without restrictive IP we ALL would be worse off than they are with the abuses of IP.

I think you are correct about “Person”. I’d disagree with you about whether he is smart though. I think he is rat cunning alright but not very bright.

Interesting and plausible hypothesis. I like the metaphor.

Turning now to patents. I was sympathetic to the conventional position regarding IP and patents and so on until I came across your papers and contributions on the VMI website. At the time this was an unwelcome shock. I’ve since tried to refute the approach on several occasions and each time came upon further facets of IP law and the ideas behind it. Not good for the pro-IP position I’m afraid.

So I’ll read up and learn some more but what a surprise to find that the defense of IP is in general not robust (usually relying on non-fundamentals).

Thanks Sione. That’s nice of you to say. I have heard a similar thing from many people. Person keeps insisting I am not genuine, but look, I was originally pro-IP, I bought the RAndian line (wiht reservations, since it’s so full of sh*t), then became a patent lawyer. I realized Rand’s theory was not right, so kept struggling, trying to find ways to justify IP. Finally it dawned on my that I was failing because it was not justifiable. I changed my mind, despite myself, when the evidence and arguments becames insurmountable.

ONce one sees it, one realizes every day there are story after story of abuse and perversion. I gave a few of these, and Person can only say, well in any system there are bad decisions. He just does not get it.

I think you are correct about “Person”. I’d disagree with you about whether he is smart though. I think he is rat cunning alright but not very bright.

Turning now to patents. I was sympathetic to the conventional position regarding IP and patents and so on until I came across your papers and contributions on the VMI website. At the time this was an unwelcome shock. I’ve since tried to refute the approach on several occasions and each time came upon further facets of IP law and the ideas behind it. Not good for the pro-IP position I’m afraid.

So I’ll read up and learn some more but what a surprise to find that the defense of IP is in general not robust (usually relying on non-fundamentals).

Sione

Since you refuse to answer the questions I’ll have to interpret what your position may be from the writings you’ve made on this blog.

Q/. I’m very interested in knowing the answers to the questions regarding the patent at issue in this particular case. Was it a patent that should not have issued?

Person acknowledgement likely to be/. This patent should not have been issued.

Q/. What was the standard or test applied to determine the decision to award the patent or not?

Person acknowledgement likely to be/. “Obviousness.”

Q/. The United States Patent and Trademark Office thought it was fit to issue that patent. Do you agree they were correct in so doing? Or did they make a mistake?

Person acknowledgement likely to be/. They were wrong to issue. They made a mistake.

Q/. If this patent was issued due to a mistake, what was the mistake?

Person acknowledgement likely to be/. The mistake was due to the “fuzziness” of “obviousness”.

Q/. Where was it exactly? What did the United States Patent and Trademark Office do wrong? Was it a misinterpretation of the idea, or the claims, or the form of the document, or was it a mistaken application of the test (standards) that were applied to decide whether to award the patent or not?

Person acknowledgement likely to be/. The claims were “fuzzy”. The test was “fuzzy.”

Q/. Was this an isolated and rare error or are such mistakes commonly made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)?

Person acknowledgement likely to be/. The error is not rare or isolated.

Q/. I am led to believe there are many dubious patents in the system (I was given a collection of some really odd stuff- all awarded). Is this all down to clerical or other administrative errors? Is there a systemic problem in the USPTO?

Person position likely to be/. It’s too fuzzy to say. The system may or may not be fuzzy but it is fuzzy. But that does not invalidate the system just because it fuzzy. Its a valid fuzzy system and does fuzzy stuff.

Q/. Or was it due to the test being wrong?

P/. The test is fuzzy but that does not make fuzziness a reason to reject the fuzzy ideas behind the fuzzy system. I can’t reject a fuzzy concept because it is too fuzzy to say exactly what it is (except that its fuzzy) other whether its wrong or right (it’s too fuzzy for that). If the fuzzy concept stays fuzzy enough then no-one can get a clear definition what it is and I can’t have my feet held to the fire long enough for anyone to discover the flaws in the idea I am defending. I am fuzzy too you know.

Q/. Now, if the test was wrong, what exactly was wrong with the it?

P/. It’s fuzzy.

Q/. Is it correct that the test to award a patent is inherently arbitrary and ambiguous?

P/. Yes. It’s fuzzy.

Q/. If so, how would you repair the test to make the it objective and specific? What are the specific principles to be applied?

P/. Fuzziness and yet more of the same. More fuzziness. That might not make it objective and specific but as long as everything remains unfocussed and fuzzy then I can go on defending it in a fuzzy sort of a way or perhaps not, as the case may be (or not).

Q/. In the case of an erroneously awarded patent how would you go about repairing the damage done to the competitors of the patent owner? Presently they must incur costs litigating or incur an effective loss simply by not producing goods and services they otherwise might. Who should be expected to bear all these costs? The present arrangement can hardly be considered just.

P/. But it is fuzzy. Anyway, I have no interest in repairing anything. I just like the general fuzzy idea that ideas are like, you know, like property in a fuzzy sort of way, and that people can patent things and stuff. Know what I mean? Actually I hope you don’t, as I’d like to alter my position again sometime and if you understand what my position is then it isn’t fuzzy enough. I really do not like questions very much. I really don’t like being asked to state my thinking in a rigorous and logical fashion since I do not actually think that way, OK.

++

That aside, the issue here is you have been arguing on the VMI blog these past few months by making assertions which you constantly fail to explain in specific detail or properly defend. When it comes to specifics you disappear into a fog of verbiage, obfuscation and disingenuousness.

It is often stated that you can know a man according to his acts. In your case that is so. It is readily concluded you like the idea of IP but do not have a coherent or self-consistent argument to defend your fondness. The second conclusion to come to is that you are dishonest. You’d rather not consider it is you who need to build a logical position. Your evasions on this blog are evidence of a greater intellectual evasion you are committing upon yourself.

A warning for you. Analogy does not mean “the same as.” I do note your attempt to use real property as an analogy for IP. It does not hold. They are not the same and the differences extend to a more fundamental level than “use” or “obviousness” or even “ambiguity.” The similarity you are banking on is superficial at best. I recommend you start your education by walking around the borders of the property you own (or rent) and touching the ground! Next you might try to touch some if the innovative ideas in you mind. Yes! Get a hold of one of them and cast it onto the ground if you can! Clearly we are dealing with very different entities here.

To make your position you must start from first principles (which you must state and be prepared to defend) and work your way up from there, demonstrating evidence and proofs every step of the way. This requires a serious, complete, consistent and rigorous application of logic.

To conclude. I was sympathetic towards the patenting idea until I stared researching it. Then certain issues and problems became apparent. These are matters of principle and are not easily sorted out. Perhaps they can’t be. Certainly your febrile attempts suggest they can’t be.

I need to investigate the subject further but must concede that the position promoted by S Kinsella (and others) is strong. He may indeed be correct. So far I have not found a refutation. And as for you mate, you were no assistance whatsoever. Useless.

Sione

I grant you nothing at all. But I do want some answers from you.

For the record my claims are these:

1/. I asked you to provide answers to specific questions. Go to my original post and there they all are.

2/. You have not answered they questions.

3/. I’d like you to answer the questions.

4/. I’ve politely asked you to answer them on several occasions now.

5/. You’ve spent considerable intellectual effort attempting to dodge those same questions. So far you’ve introduced new arguments and situations that I did not specifically ask you about. You’ve gone to a lot of trouble doing this. Why? Surely it would be more efficient to answer the questions directly? Stick to the point.

6/. You made some claims (explicit and implicit). As you have made those claims I’ve explained it is you who bear the burden of proof for them. All of them. I am well within my rights to be asking for your proofs, “time suck” (as you so gracefully put it) or not.

7/. When you referred to “we” (as in you and I both) I explained that you speak only for yourself, not for me.

8/. I have made no argument or asserted ANYTHING when it comes to IP except that I am interested in the topic and have been doing some reading about it lately. My interest is WHY I asked you for certain specific information.

9/. I have been following the discussions about IP matters on the VMI blog and have read some of the papers I found relating to it.

10/. I visited Mr Kinsella’s web page and read some of his work. I think I am reasonably familiar with his approach to the subject.

11/. Now I want to know your position. In this case I want to know what you think about matters relating to the particular case that started this discussion off in the first place. Hence the questions.

12/. Analogy does not mean “the same as.” An analogy may be suitable as a tool of clarification or illustration of a point relating to a specific situation, but an analogy is not a verification or proof in and of itself. I prefer formal proofs. You need to be aware of that.

Finally, all I’m asking you to do is answer a few questions. That’s it. All you need to do. Answer some questions. They relate to the essay originally posted. Forget the rest, all I’d like to know is what your thinking actually is on the particular issues I asked about.

Now why is it that you go round and round in circles evading the questions? Why not take a direct approach and answer each and every question. That’d be the honest approach. How difficult can that be for you?

Sione

PS I did not invite you to comment to me about your opinion of Mr Kinsella (who I understand is a qualified engineer, attorney and IP practitioner). I can ask him questions well enough on my own. He can respond with his answers (although having read his papers, previous comments and web site I’d grant he’s already provided me with his answers and plenty of background material besides- that’s more than I can say for you). For goodness sakes man, just answer what I asked.

Do you accept that it is physically possible for a court to make an absurd over- or mis-application of property rights? Do you accept that this would not invalidate the concept of property rights? Then you’ve granted all I need for my argument — you accept that this error on the part of the courts and the PTO is in no sense an argument against patents.

There was a case a long time ago in which farmers were ruled to have superior property rights to their airspace over planes wishing to fly over. This was overturned on appeal. But the specifics of that case aren’t incredibly relevant. The fact is, courts can screw up in adjudicating property rights, and this has no bearing on the validity of the rights as such. Your demands that I dig up the case are just a time suck, and I’d be surprised if you didn’t yourself recognize it as such.

What Stephan is left to fall back on is that what makes regular property rights immune to this exact problem is that they’re less ambiguous, and more well-defined. This then is on him, or you to demonstrate. I have already shown that ambiguity problems attach to the concept of “use” just as much as to “obvious”. I have presented everything I need to make this argument, so please stop pretending otherwise.

You have indicated to me that there is a ruling by a Federal Court in the USA that allows farmers to shoot at aircraft. If so, I am surprised, but given the reputation the US legal system has for strange decisions and weird litigation outcomes I’d have to concede it is possible. However I do not know anything about this particular situation. Since you are the one who originally raised this ruling in your post to me, I have asked you to tell me all about it. Please provide the information. I need to know the details so I can understand what happened, how the decision was made and what the context was. Or were you being disingenuous?

Now I do not know what you mean by “the situations are exactly parallel.” That’s another claim you made. Which particular situations are you referring to? What is the context? In order for me to understand what you are getting at you have to explain yourself, specifically and clearly. I’ve asked for your assistance several times now. Since it is YOU have asserted this particular positive the burden of providing the proof for it falls directly on YOU. No-one else. YOU. I’m calling you out. What is wrong with you? Why can’t you back yourself? Have you nothing but rhetoric?

You go on to refer to “concepts we know are equally hard to define”. There is no “we” here. You speak for yourself only. That is why I am asking you for answers to those questions. What concepts are these you are referring to? You are once again asserting something. Fine. You can do that. Now I ask you for your method and proof. The burden to show your process and thought falls on YOU. Get on with it mate. Stop evading. Why are you so scared to show me what you’ve got?

Quoting: “Do you agree that the poor property rights ruling I referenced is not an argument against all property rights?” How am I supposed to make this decision in the absence of any information? YOU have not provided me with any evidence to back your bare assertions. Am I supposed to read your mind? Chances are that effort would lead to an incorrect answer. Anyway I do not believe in mind-reading.

I requested politely from you some information. That’s all I did. I was civil, well mannered and respectful. You responded with obfuscation, accusation and vague insult. I am not playing games with you. I asked you for some answers. Please supply them. That’s all you have to do.

Quoting: “Do you agree that there are fuzzy boundaries in property rights?” To what are you referring exactly? Are you claiming that all property rights are undefinable? All property is in some sort of fuzzy limbo? How can I even start to make a decision about this? YOU have provided me with absolutely NOTHING to base any understanding or decision upon. This is plain weak. Anyway it is somewhat off the topic. It’s not what I asked you about.

Back on point now. Let’s stick to the main topic. I have asked you several times to answer some questions relating to a particular IP matter. If you reread my original post you will find those questions are still all listed there. I also explained why I was interested and what my background in the subject was. I note that since that time you have consistently refused to address ANY of those questions directly. All that you’ve done is raise other questions (so now we have the original issue pertaining to IP, new issues pertaining to aviation law and now property laws in general as well). This clarifies nothing. What it does achieve is the raising of doubt about your performance, sincerities and abilities. Now I really do not want this to degenerate into name calling but I do have to state for the record that you have behaved in a disappointing fashion indeed. This can be rectified easily enough though. So why not do it?

With formal respect I request from you your honest and direct answers the questions I asked you about, openly and honestly. Please go ahead and answer each of them honestly and in turn. I’d appreciate your candour and assistance with this.

Sione

Whatever dude. The point is, you seem to want to stop the “meta-discussion” at the precise moment where you start to look bad. It seems to look a little fake after a while, that’s all.

“Sione: I already answered you in full. Yeah, I could come up with some rigorous standard for what is “obvious”, and you could poke holes in it,”

Hmm I wonder why.

Try to read the rest of that passage if you could.

Well, you say you are undecided, yet you attack IP opponents

I don’t attack IP opponents. I attack the poor arguments of IP opponents. You’re the one who tries to make everything personal. (Yes, I know you can claim that’s what you “really” meant, but seriously — who would you be kidding?)

with your boring drug-patent examples

They’re not boring. When you mockingly ask “where would the innovation be without patents”, you have to consider the inconvenient facts about drug R&D. Calling them “boring” is not a substitute for a serious reply.

which imply you believe the patent system is worthwhile in some cases.

No, they imply that I believe the specific argument you attempted to advance was in error — which it was.

And as you refuse to state your view

I’ve said it several times over, and no one believes me because their feelings are too hurt by my arguments that they have to paint me as some bad guy, or, in your case, a gadfly, instead of actually rectifying the problem I listed in their argument.

The fact is, either you agree with us real libertarians

So, Rothbard isn’t a real libertarian now? (can’t wait for your handwave on this one)

at least ceteris paribus, or prima facie, to use the scarce resources appropriate by someone from the state or nature (or contractually acquired from someone who did) without their consent or permission–or you don’t. If you don’t, you are nothing but a savage-criminal,

Except that you (and Rothbard) don’t really believe this. You believe that e.g., the first person in a region to use a radio transmitter a certain way has the right stop others from using their transmitters that way, even though historically, the first property rights in these were established by statute. So, you believe in at least some divisiblity of ownership and that homesteading does not entitle you to all uses of a resource, even non-aggressive uses. And even if it did, it would mean that you accept that the non-scarcity of information does not have any implications for intellectual property — it would be irrelevant.

you and I and others here agree on the basic idea that if you appropriate a thing then you own it. Yes the contours can be fuzzy, yes mistakes can be made. So what. we all agree on the basic point.

No, it’s not “so what”. THAT’S THE CENTRAL POINT. There are fuzzy boundaries in property (i.e., first use, exact delimitation). There are fuzzy boundaries in defining “obvious” as well. Does that mean I can handwave it all away by saying “so what. We all agree on the basic point.” You are trying to claim the ambiguity in obviousness demonstrates the flaw in intellectual property. My point is that the same ambiguity can arise in “regular” property. If you don’t have a counterargument, please say so.

Given this, for you to propose an IP theory, or even for you to doubt or challenge any libertarian opposition to IP on any basis whatsoever (or even for no basis), requires you to accept the burden of proving why this is not incompatible with the basic, fundamental property appropriation rule we all agree with already.

No, you’re changing the topic. You mocked the idea that without patents, certain innovations wouldn’t happen. Here, I contested, THAT idea. True to form, you then switched topics. But now that I’ve set you straight, you won’t do that again, right?

Sione: I don’t think you’re listening to me, or if you are, you’re playing some silly game. My point is that the situations are exactly parallel. What do you gain from me giving you these answers? They wouldn’t add to or take away from the point. We’d just waste a lot of time rigorously defining concepts which we know are equally hard to define. Do you agree that the poor property rights ruling I referenced is not an argument against all property rights? Do you agree that there are fuzzy boundaries in property rights? Then you agree with my point, and your questions are a waste of time. If you just want to get background information, well, we do have the internet, you know. I’m not here to be your research guide.

No you have not answered any of my questions. You did not even make an honest attempt to do so.

Why do you evade the questions? Do you not have any answers to share?

All I’ve asked (politely) from you was for you to provide me some information. Why is it you want me to try to guess what YOUR answers to MY questions may or may not happen to be? I’m not omniscient. I do not know your thoughts. I know not how you formed your conclusions. That’s why I asked man.

Your comment;” You should be able to answer your own questions before you make me answer them” is baffling. I’ve already told you that I am not an expert in this field. I asked you these questions because I want to understand your opinions about the topic. I want to learn from YOU what YOU are thinking and what YOUR approach is.

You previously stated that your purpose is to help me understand the answers to my questions. Well I am asking you to do exactly that by the most direct and simplest possible method. Here is your opportunity.

Please provide the answers to those questions. Surely that isn’t too much to ask?

Sione

A smear is not technically meta-discussion, it’s just inappropriat as changing the subject or ad hominem. Meta-discussion refers to changing the subject of discussion to a discussion about the discussion. Such as you’ve successfully done just now. It’s just a sub-type of changing the subject, which is a type of slippery evasion and dishonesty in argumentative tactic. It demonstrates a lack of sincerity.

“Sione: I already answered you in full. Yeah, I could come up with some rigorous standard for what is “obvious”, and you could poke holes in it,”

Hmm I wonder why.

“Person’s position on IP: Undecided”

Well, you say you are undecided, yet you attack IP opponents with your boring drug-patent examples, which imply you believe the patent system is worthwhile in some cases. And as you refuse to state your view, yet are indigment when we are forced to interpolate it.

The fact is, either you agree with us real libertarians that it is wrong, at least ceteris paribus, or prima facie, to use the scarce resources appropriate by someone from the state or nature (or contractually acquired from someone who did) without their consent or permission–or you don’t. If you don’t, you are nothing but a savage-criminal, an uncivilized person, and merely a technical problem, and I for one see no particualr reason to speak to you. But if you do, as I assume you by and large do, there here we have it: you and I and others here agree on the basic idea that if you appropriate a thing then you own it. Yes the contours can be fuzzy, yes mistakes can be made. So what. we all agree on the basic point.

Given this, for you to propose an IP theory, or even for you to doubt or challenge any libertarian opposition to IP on any basis whatsoever (or even for no basis), requires you to accept the burden of proving why this is not incompatible with the basic, fundamental property appropriation rule we all agree with already.

So what is it, Person? Are you an advocate of criminality, or do you want to attempt to satisfy the burden of proof you’ve assumed by claiming even the possibility that IP rights are justified? If you don’t put up you might as well shut up, because you are saying nothing, you are merely barking.

Sione: I already answered you in full. Yeah, I could come up with some rigorous standard for what is “obvious”, and you could poke holes in it, and the you all could come up with a rigorous standard for what constitutes “use”, and then I could poke holes in it, but we wouldn’t be any better off than before. YES there are bad patent rulings. Yes, there are bad property rulings. NEITHER is an argument against either. There’s not much more I can add to that. You should be able to answer your own questions before you make me answer them. Otherwise, it kinda starts to look like you have a double standard.

As for my position. Well, since I already stated it, I can only take your inquiry to mean that you think I’m lying. If you really forgot it, here it is again:

Person’s position on IP: Undecided, but cringes at poor arguments for either side by people who should know better.

Now, how many more times am I going to repeat the above?

If helping me find YOUR answers to MY questions is your purpose, then you should know that your post did not help at all. You have yet to achieve your stated purpose. Given that is the case it would be a good idea now to try a different, more direct approach.

Seriously, the best way you can help me would be to actually answer the questions I presented you with. That is the simplest and most direct method available for you to convey to me what it is you think.

How difficult can it be to state your opinion clearly? I’m interested to read it. I’ve asked you for it. Why is it you refuse to present it?

Sione

I’ve seen *attempts* at arguments, but no actual arguments. Remind me what you’re referring to here?

Sione:

The purpose of me turning your question around was to help you find the answer to your own questions. If you’re unwilling to answer them, well, I think you’re the one who’s not serious.

To everyone here:

It’s cute that you like to paint me as the IP lover, but the truth is, I’m not. I consider myself undecided, which is exactly I have little tolerance for poor arguments toward either end. If and when someone here makes poor arguments in favor of IP, I will be at least as brutal.