1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/7609/ip-right-to-profits-nothing-more-and-nothing-less/

IP = right to profits. Nothing more and nothing less.

January 3, 2008 by

IP is the manifestation on creativity of an underlying Marxist theme: the labor theory of value.

What if I discover/invent something but others market it first? What if they market it better?

Am I not entitled to profits for my discovery or invention?Answering yes to the last question is what lies at the core of so called Intellectual Property.

Well, one does not have a guarantee in any other activity, so why in invention? Shouldn’t that area too be subjected to the rigors of the free market? But of course, I say.

1.- What if another copies my machine?

Learn marketing and keep improving, as we all do in other areas.

2.- What if another uses my brand?

Learn marketing and keep your standards, or you will destroy the brand no law could keep live anyway if you mess up.

3.- What if another plays my tune?

You learned how to walk or talk from others (gestures instead of notes), in very specific cultural combinations too. Be a good musician. Nobody confused a Beethoven or a Mozart with a second-rate musician in any age. The best do better.

Yes, patents, trademark and copyright: the three ugly faces of the labor theory of creativity.

{ 152 comments }

Jerry Lee January 8, 2008 at 3:02 am

That does not represent a market value for the idea. Both had equal claim to the idea–they both originally derived idea for themselves. Both Jill and Jim’s father had a product to sell. The only reason Jim was willing to pay the $1 was for convienince of not shopping around. Jim’s father underbid Jill with a price of $0.

What if they didn’t solve the puzzle by themselves? What if they had heard it from someone? Or what if Jill had told the answer to Jim’s father earlier?


This does bring up the question of if Intellectual Property should be extended to ideas that can be independently reproduced. Someone shouldn’t get possession of an idea just because they had it “first.” Original works, like poems and stories cannot be independently reproduced. They wouldn’t exist without the author.

This is exactly what I was hinting at. However, the idea that something needs to be truly unique and original to be owned presents more problems. It’s unlikely that two people would come up with the exact same book by themselves, but what about a haiku poem? How many words does something need to have for someone to be able to own it? Can you own a sentence, and if not, why not? Or the general plot of a story? After all, these are all ideas.

CALEV BEN AVRAHAM November 21, 2009 at 12:54 pm

I have published a book with the bookguild in sussex Brighton england,the book is availeble the world over and is in the major Universities and librries of the world.Papamedia has afulfilment Ratio of 80.71% sales ratio for my book .But my pubplisher claimes that only three books have been sold in the last eighteen months! Which is a great untruth.When confronted with this info they have sent me rude responses but refuse to acknowledge the sales reports of Papamdia and others.What can one we authors do to protect ourselves from wolves in sheepclothes?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: