What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Intellectual Property
This essay will change the way you think about patents and copyrights. Few essays written in the last decades have caused so much fundamental rethinking. It is essential that libertarians get this issue right and understand the arguments on all sides. Kinsella's piece here is masterful in making a case against IP that turns out to be more rigorous and thorough than any written on the left, right, or anything in between.Would a libertarian society recognize patents as legitimate? What about copyright? In Against Intellectual Property, Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney of many years’ experience, offers his response to these questions. Kinsella is altogether opposed to intellectual property, and he explains his position in this brief but wide-ranging book.
71 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
About the author
N. Stephan Kinsella
26 books44 followersAlso publishes as Stephan Kinsella.
Norman Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property attorney and libertarian legal theorist.
He is the founder and Editor of Libertarian Papers, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and General Counsel for Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. He is a former partner with Duane Morris LLP and was adjunct law professor at South Texas College of Law, and is currently a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Kinsella has published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics. He received an LL.M. in international business law from King’s College London, a JD from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at LSU, and B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering degrees also from LSU.
Norman Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property attorney and libertarian legal theorist.
He is the founder and Editor of Libertarian Papers, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and General Counsel for Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. He is a former partner with Duane Morris LLP and was adjunct law professor at South Texas College of Law, and is currently a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Kinsella has published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics. He received an LL.M. in international business law from King’s College London, a JD from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at LSU, and B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering degrees also from LSU.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
September 3, 2016
I’ve always considered libertarianism to be a childishly simplistic and completely unworkable political philosophy, but with regards to intellectual property I do think that patent laws are now serving to stifle innovation. We now have patent trolls whose only business model is to blackmail companies into settling costly patent infringement claims, while producing little or no benefit to society. For a primer on the topic see
This American Life – When Patents Attack
.
With that as a background I decided to read Against Intellectual Property by N. Stephan Kinsella a monograph published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (a libertarian economics think tank based in Alabama). A free copy of this short publication may be downloaded here.
Kinsella argues that we should do away with all intellectual property rights (IPRs) because they not only violate property rights, but undermine social well-being from a utilitarian perspective. There is some merit to this position. If a new innovation were made more widely available, others could expand upon it, create new applications for it and produce new products that may both generate profits and benefit others. A thoughtful case could be made that revisions to patent laws could occur that both protect the inventor and spur further innovation.
Unfortunately, that’s not what Kinsella does. In true libertarian fashion he ventures into crazy town and absurdly claims that because IPRs restrict the use of some technologies, that they should therefore be done away with completely, and he does so using sloppy argumentation that falls within the standard ‘all or nothing’ perspective that is so in vogue with libertarians (i.e. let shop owners discriminate against minorities and homosexuals, eliminate safety, health and environmental regulations, eliminate taxes and government services … because freedom).
The arguments Kinsella uses can be roughly broken into three logical fallacies:
1. The False Continuum Fallacy: Kinsella argues that there is an arbitrariness to patent law that renders the entire endeavor meaningless. Patents are extended for 20 years, but why is this better than 19 or 20 or 30 years? Patents can be granted for innovations but not for scientific discoveries, but why should this be the case? This is the False Continuum fallacy - The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful. You see this a lot with gun advocates who argue that the distinction between a rifle and an assault rifle (say a pistol grip) is so small that there’s really no reason the latter should be made illegal. As far as it goes, the point may be a valid one, however, a limit needs to be set somewhere along the continuum between a slingshot and an ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead so the choice of an assault rifle is not an unreasonable one. With regards to patents, a reasonable discussion of the length of the grant can be had. But we do know that the correct answer is neither 1 second nor 1 million years. Twenty years is a reasonable first approximation. The fact that 19 years might be a better number is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
2. Reductio Ad Absurdum Fallacy: Another argument Kinsella favors is an abuse of the reductio ad absurdum technique in which the logic is stretched beyond meaningfulness in order to force an absurd conclusion. By way of example, Kinsella claims that if a caveman built and patented a cabin, that all the other cavemen would be forced to remain in their caves unless they could license the cabin patent themselves. Of course such a silly conclusion is only possible because no such ‘cabin’ patent exists.
3. The Non-Sequitur: Imagine a property owner who discovers oil beneath the ground. He comes up with a plan to buy out his neighbor’s property at a discount before they learn the truth. But the secret is leaked. We couldn’t expect the neighbors to still sell at the low price now that they’ve been made aware of the true value of their land, so why should we restrict the free use of any information … including copyrighted material? This, of course, is a complete non-sequitur - an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Information such as a fact or scientific truth cannot be copyrighted or patented. It in no way follows from this example that an author should therefore lose exclusive rights to his book once released to the public.
Like with many libertarian ideas, the idea of eliminating IPRs can be technically characterized as ‘fricking ridiculous’ and will be put into practice within a timeframe legal scholars refer to as ‘when hell freezes over’. Why?
1. First of all the US economy is built upon innovation. Why would any business or individual invest enormous resources of time, money and energy to develop a new product or technology when, upon release, every Joe Sixpack in every country of the world would create a copy without incurring any R&D costs? They wouldn’t. The most profitable sector of the US economy would collapse if IPRs were eliminated.
2. It’s unconstitutional … go read Article One, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution which states: The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
With that as a background I decided to read Against Intellectual Property by N. Stephan Kinsella a monograph published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (a libertarian economics think tank based in Alabama). A free copy of this short publication may be downloaded here.
Kinsella argues that we should do away with all intellectual property rights (IPRs) because they not only violate property rights, but undermine social well-being from a utilitarian perspective. There is some merit to this position. If a new innovation were made more widely available, others could expand upon it, create new applications for it and produce new products that may both generate profits and benefit others. A thoughtful case could be made that revisions to patent laws could occur that both protect the inventor and spur further innovation.
Unfortunately, that’s not what Kinsella does. In true libertarian fashion he ventures into crazy town and absurdly claims that because IPRs restrict the use of some technologies, that they should therefore be done away with completely, and he does so using sloppy argumentation that falls within the standard ‘all or nothing’ perspective that is so in vogue with libertarians (i.e. let shop owners discriminate against minorities and homosexuals, eliminate safety, health and environmental regulations, eliminate taxes and government services … because freedom).
The arguments Kinsella uses can be roughly broken into three logical fallacies:
1. The False Continuum Fallacy: Kinsella argues that there is an arbitrariness to patent law that renders the entire endeavor meaningless. Patents are extended for 20 years, but why is this better than 19 or 20 or 30 years? Patents can be granted for innovations but not for scientific discoveries, but why should this be the case? This is the False Continuum fallacy - The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful. You see this a lot with gun advocates who argue that the distinction between a rifle and an assault rifle (say a pistol grip) is so small that there’s really no reason the latter should be made illegal. As far as it goes, the point may be a valid one, however, a limit needs to be set somewhere along the continuum between a slingshot and an ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead so the choice of an assault rifle is not an unreasonable one. With regards to patents, a reasonable discussion of the length of the grant can be had. But we do know that the correct answer is neither 1 second nor 1 million years. Twenty years is a reasonable first approximation. The fact that 19 years might be a better number is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
2. Reductio Ad Absurdum Fallacy: Another argument Kinsella favors is an abuse of the reductio ad absurdum technique in which the logic is stretched beyond meaningfulness in order to force an absurd conclusion. By way of example, Kinsella claims that if a caveman built and patented a cabin, that all the other cavemen would be forced to remain in their caves unless they could license the cabin patent themselves. Of course such a silly conclusion is only possible because no such ‘cabin’ patent exists.
3. The Non-Sequitur: Imagine a property owner who discovers oil beneath the ground. He comes up with a plan to buy out his neighbor’s property at a discount before they learn the truth. But the secret is leaked. We couldn’t expect the neighbors to still sell at the low price now that they’ve been made aware of the true value of their land, so why should we restrict the free use of any information … including copyrighted material? This, of course, is a complete non-sequitur - an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Information such as a fact or scientific truth cannot be copyrighted or patented. It in no way follows from this example that an author should therefore lose exclusive rights to his book once released to the public.
Like with many libertarian ideas, the idea of eliminating IPRs can be technically characterized as ‘fricking ridiculous’ and will be put into practice within a timeframe legal scholars refer to as ‘when hell freezes over’. Why?
1. First of all the US economy is built upon innovation. Why would any business or individual invest enormous resources of time, money and energy to develop a new product or technology when, upon release, every Joe Sixpack in every country of the world would create a copy without incurring any R&D costs? They wouldn’t. The most profitable sector of the US economy would collapse if IPRs were eliminated.
2. It’s unconstitutional … go read Article One, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution which states: The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
October 17, 2020
I really don’t get the low-scored reviews of this book. Although I’m nowhere near right-wing libertarian, this is one of the most thought-provoking essays I’ve read. Kinsella targets an egregious version of socialism for the rich: intellectual property. If you’re concerned about state-granted intellectual property rights and the best way to encourage innovation then this relatively short essay is the first thing you should read.
March 23, 2021
This work discusses what intellectual property is and makes a case against it. This is written primarily for libertarians. IP has always been a contentious issue in the classical liberal/libertarian community. People like Ayn Rand supported it while Murray Rothbard opposed it.
The author identifies four types of intellectual property; patents, copyright, trademark and trade secrets. He is opposed to patents and copyright while having a more complicated opinion on the other two.
The case against IP is that IP is not property because it is not scarce. Property rights only make sense under scarcity. Furthermore, IP gives its owners power to control tangible property that they do not own. The author also points out that in practice IP is absurdly arbitrary.
There is a lot of space dedicated to addressing theories of IP and responding to possible rebuttals.
It is a wonderfully short "book". It is written clearly and to the point.
The author identifies four types of intellectual property; patents, copyright, trademark and trade secrets. He is opposed to patents and copyright while having a more complicated opinion on the other two.
The case against IP is that IP is not property because it is not scarce. Property rights only make sense under scarcity. Furthermore, IP gives its owners power to control tangible property that they do not own. The author also points out that in practice IP is absurdly arbitrary.
There is a lot of space dedicated to addressing theories of IP and responding to possible rebuttals.
It is a wonderfully short "book". It is written clearly and to the point.
June 29, 2021
Listened to audio. Found free here:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
A enjoyed learning more about what IP looks like and some different theories supporting it and against it.
As a writer I find it intriguing. I do believe ideas aren't mine to keep inside or profit from, but meant to be shared, and that if I don't share them God will find another vessel with which to bless the world.
I never thought before how IP laws can infringe upon property rights. But yes, we do allow ideas to trump material ownership when we tell someone they can't do what they want with their own stuff because of thoughts other people had. Fascinating. I want to learn more.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
A enjoyed learning more about what IP looks like and some different theories supporting it and against it.
As a writer I find it intriguing. I do believe ideas aren't mine to keep inside or profit from, but meant to be shared, and that if I don't share them God will find another vessel with which to bless the world.
I never thought before how IP laws can infringe upon property rights. But yes, we do allow ideas to trump material ownership when we tell someone they can't do what they want with their own stuff because of thoughts other people had. Fascinating. I want to learn more.
June 27, 2019
The author makes an argument for getting rid of patents, copyrights, and trade marks. I read this after seeing how terribly inconsistent most people in my industry are when it comes to copyright infringement. I did not find Kinsella's arguments convincing.
April 28, 2011
Worth a read. Its damn short, and I knew most of this stuff already but its a nice consolidation. The economics isn't particularly deep here, but need it be? If it can be convincingly shown to violate basic economic concepts at the onset, why bother going into deep theory? Similar things can be said for the moral arguments, but this book brought up a few things I hadn't considered on that front so I wont linger on it. Even if you dont want to read the book, definitely check out the appendix which has a listing of silly patents which are actually on the books. Funny stuff.
September 10, 2010
I am in the process of going through this book again.
Many things I agreed with right off, and some things were new to me and I have to rethink them through to sort them out.
Definately a book that makes you think deeper about intellectual property and what is right and wrong in our policies or abscence of policies on this topic.
Many things I agreed with right off, and some things were new to me and I have to rethink them through to sort them out.
Definately a book that makes you think deeper about intellectual property and what is right and wrong in our policies or abscence of policies on this topic.
September 4, 2020
This book provides interesting insights for the reader to mull over, which is what is truly important in a work such as this. Whether one agrees with the author or not is ultimately unimportant, as you are sure to get something out of the read in the end. Oh, and true to the Kinsella's words, its digital version is available for free download, which is always a good thing.
August 30, 2011
Kinsella's position is simplistic: throw the baby out with the dishwater! Let's go back to craftsmanship, "Learn a trade", darn it! But, wait, the modern crafts are the sciences. Kinsella says: "Kill the growth and increasing employment in all fields of science, basic research, applied research, development, and the increasingly important trade in REAL INNOVATIONS that cannot be folded into a product or service, carried around in trucks, and sold in a cardboard box." Kinsella and others seem to agree that (a) governments serve special interests and not the public, (b) intellectual property rights are and will be issued to perpetuate undeserved monopolies on "innovations" that are not innovations of a significance that could serve the interest of everyman by their very achievement. Kinsella would doom our Edisons to lives of subservience to Wall Street .. please Sir, can I have a nickel to change the world with my light bulb? How about another nickel to prevent cancer? Of course, in Kinsella's world, all of us may worship his God and read by candlelight in our communal mud and dirt huts, till our fields together, "live off the land" so to speak, and we will be better off by this return to the simple lives of yesteryear infers Kinsella - but return to which year? The 1300's? The 1700's? So, this book is a great waste of time issued by an author pushing an unstated agenda. Kinsella fails to address the true problem: how can everyman control government and minimize the agency problem associated with the existence and actions of government, which usually amounts to imposing additional indirect taxes on the lives, liberties, and financial resources of the governed? Maybe Kinsella can come up with one solution for that real, underlying problem and get a patent on it. Just not in Kinsella's world view.
I offer a far better solution to the problems hinted at by Kinsella:
1. Improvements in goods and services merit very little protection - copying is efficient for everyone except the innovator, right? Hence, provide a market in rights to copy - just pay to copy. Trade rights to copy in the marketplace and harshly penalize copying without purchasing the right to make copies. This works for smartphones and software and movies too. Essentially, this is modern copyright protection, but with an important different - it stops short of issuing a private right to exclude unless knowing failure to purchase the right to make copies, plus policing costs, is proved. So, a market for rights to copy solves many problems. The protections for product development and "software wrench work" should be far, far lower than the protections available for cold fusion energy creation, preventing cancer, or "beam me up Scottie" technology, because the market for goods and services can price in the value of mundane innovations or changes in products and software, but thus far markets cannot efficiently price basic innovations achieved through complex, lengthy, and expensive trial and error research.
2. What about protecting, pricing and thus promoting expensive, risky, lengthy basic research in cold fusion energy creation, preventing cancer, or "beam me up Scottie" technology, where the market for goods and services cannot conceive of new innovations 5 or 10 years in the future? Government needs to help create liquidity with much stronger patent rights.
How about this solution, instead: 1. Recognize that issuing 20 year patents to make use and sell claimed inventions is a "shotgun approach", 2. Reduce government role by going to a market mechanism to price the protection for most innovations (buy 5 years of royalties or no-competition in a trading marketplace, according to what you want today), 3. Make government issued rights available as a backstop mechanism to promote some long-run basic research that markets are not good at pricing, perhaps because the innovations are directed to mental processes, law, making weapons that are commonly owned, eliminating trade in weapons, reducing famine, etc. I suggest creating an integrated intellectual property system that eliminates ALL trade secrets, without exception, and requires participants to (a) disclose R&D and know-how, and (b) purchase intellectual property protection in a trading marketplace, by the month or year, (c) where the protections provide participants the right to demand royalties for any use of information created by them and disclosed to the public. No more monopoly rights, but no more trade secrets either. Trade secrets are monopolies and often are not in the public interest. If you hold trade secrets, you owe a big, fat penalty, for withholding potentially useful information from the public. Disclosure is compulsory, because it allows the public to avoid wasting resources on R&D that is already known to not work. Such a system would increase efficiency in allocation of capital, resources and skilled labor, and would establish market prices for the increasingly different financial investments, time, and expertise needed to perform basic research, applied research, from mundane product development and, for lack of a better term "software mechanics programming" - the work of many modern day software programmers doing software wrench work. Basically, protections for product development and "software wrench work" should be far, far lower (just prevent outright theft and blatant copying without some compensation) than the protections available for cold fusion energy creation, preventing cancer, or "beam me up Scottie" technology, because the market for goods and services can price in the value of the mundane innovations in products and software.
I offer a far better solution to the problems hinted at by Kinsella:
1. Improvements in goods and services merit very little protection - copying is efficient for everyone except the innovator, right? Hence, provide a market in rights to copy - just pay to copy. Trade rights to copy in the marketplace and harshly penalize copying without purchasing the right to make copies. This works for smartphones and software and movies too. Essentially, this is modern copyright protection, but with an important different - it stops short of issuing a private right to exclude unless knowing failure to purchase the right to make copies, plus policing costs, is proved. So, a market for rights to copy solves many problems. The protections for product development and "software wrench work" should be far, far lower than the protections available for cold fusion energy creation, preventing cancer, or "beam me up Scottie" technology, because the market for goods and services can price in the value of mundane innovations or changes in products and software, but thus far markets cannot efficiently price basic innovations achieved through complex, lengthy, and expensive trial and error research.
2. What about protecting, pricing and thus promoting expensive, risky, lengthy basic research in cold fusion energy creation, preventing cancer, or "beam me up Scottie" technology, where the market for goods and services cannot conceive of new innovations 5 or 10 years in the future? Government needs to help create liquidity with much stronger patent rights.
How about this solution, instead: 1. Recognize that issuing 20 year patents to make use and sell claimed inventions is a "shotgun approach", 2. Reduce government role by going to a market mechanism to price the protection for most innovations (buy 5 years of royalties or no-competition in a trading marketplace, according to what you want today), 3. Make government issued rights available as a backstop mechanism to promote some long-run basic research that markets are not good at pricing, perhaps because the innovations are directed to mental processes, law, making weapons that are commonly owned, eliminating trade in weapons, reducing famine, etc. I suggest creating an integrated intellectual property system that eliminates ALL trade secrets, without exception, and requires participants to (a) disclose R&D and know-how, and (b) purchase intellectual property protection in a trading marketplace, by the month or year, (c) where the protections provide participants the right to demand royalties for any use of information created by them and disclosed to the public. No more monopoly rights, but no more trade secrets either. Trade secrets are monopolies and often are not in the public interest. If you hold trade secrets, you owe a big, fat penalty, for withholding potentially useful information from the public. Disclosure is compulsory, because it allows the public to avoid wasting resources on R&D that is already known to not work. Such a system would increase efficiency in allocation of capital, resources and skilled labor, and would establish market prices for the increasingly different financial investments, time, and expertise needed to perform basic research, applied research, from mundane product development and, for lack of a better term "software mechanics programming" - the work of many modern day software programmers doing software wrench work. Basically, protections for product development and "software wrench work" should be far, far lower (just prevent outright theft and blatant copying without some compensation) than the protections available for cold fusion energy creation, preventing cancer, or "beam me up Scottie" technology, because the market for goods and services can price in the value of the mundane innovations in products and software.
October 27, 2016
كتاب قصير يفند فكرة "الملكية الفكرية" بمفهومها الشائع في العصر الحالي ونظرًا لطول الريفيو قسمته على هيئة أسئلة وإجابات.
ما هي الملكية الفكرية؟
هي ببساطة أن من يأتي بفكرة أو عمل فني أو اختراع ما له الحق في منع كل فرد من نسخ هذا العمل أو تطويره أو تقليده (وهو مفهوم يختلف عن حق المؤلف في نسبة ثمرة فكره إليه لأن الكثيرين يخلطون بينهما) أي أنه الحق في احتكار كل منتج عن فكرة ما (كاحتكار إنتاج كتاب ما) وهو بهذا المعنى يهدف لحماية الربح لا حماية المؤلف أو المبدع كما يروّج.
هل الملكية الفكرية أمر بديهي؟
بالطبع لا، فمنشأها كان في أوروبا في القرن السادس عشر، وكانت تسمى "حقوق الاحتكار"، أي أن يأتي تاجر ما ويطلب من الملك أن يتمتع بالحقوق الملكية للشاي مثلا نظير مبلغ معين، وبهذا الشكل يقضي هذا التاجر على المنافسة ويحق له توزيع الشاي متفردًا بالربح، بل وأن يستغل قوة الدولة في التنكيل بمنافسيه.
ثم تطور المفهوم بعد انتشار الطباعة ليصبح حق احتكار أيضًا ولكن لدور النشر التي يتعاقد معها المؤلفون، فلا يحق لغيرها طباعة إصدارات هذا المؤلف أو ذاك.
إذن فهو أمر وليد مجتمع معين، ولم تمارسه أي حضارة أخرى سوى الحضارة الاوروبية الحديثة (فكر مثلا ماذا سيكون حالنا لو احتكر الصينيون صناعة الحرير، والعرب صناعة الورق، وجاءت كل أمة تدعي الملكية الفكرية لمبدعيها، هل كان التراث اليوناني ليبقى لو لم يحفظه الفرس ويترجمه العرب ويطوروه دون انتظار إذن مؤلفيه أو ورثتهم؟).
هل الملكية الفكرية حق طبيعي؟
لا أيضًا، الملكية الحقيقية الوحيدة تكون للموارد النادرة، أي التي تستنفد، فمثلا إذا أخذ كل شخص قطعة أرض فإن الأراضي ستنفد، فوجب تنظيم الملكية بأسلوب يكفل حفاظ كل على حقه. ولو افترضنا أن الأرض تمتد إلى ما لا نهاية فلن يكون هناك معنى للملكية أصلا. بنفس الطريقة فإن المجردات أو ثمار الذهن لا تنفد، إذا افترضنا أن هناك من ابتكر ابتكارًا ما، وقلده جميع أهل الأرض، فإن الفكرة ستظل كما هي في رأسه ويستطيع استخدامها كما يشاء، وكذلك من يؤلف كتابًا، فإنه يشكل الكلمات بترتيب معين وليد عقله، ولو قرأه البشر أجمعين لظل هذا الترتيب ملكه لا ينتقص.
القضية إذًا هي قضية الربح فقط لا قضية نسبة الملكية، لننظر إذًا فيما يقال عن ضرورة الحفاظ على الملكية الفكرية لتحقيق الربح.
أولا: لولا حقوق الملكية الفكرية لما وجد الأدباء دافعًا لنشر أدبهم ولأحجمت دور النشر عن العمل.
من ناحية الأدباء:
لو صح ذلك لما قرر إنسان الكهف في يوم ما أن يطور أدواته، وأن يبتكر الادوات ويرتقي إلى أن وصل الإنسان إلى ما هو عليه اليوم. الإبداع ليس قائمًا على تربح المبدع، ونحن نجد مثلا أن آينشتاين الذي كان يعيش في سويسرا (لم تطبق قوانين حقوق الملكية آنذاك) توصل إلى نظريته عن النسبية ونشرها دون حافز الربح، وكذلك كل الابتكارات البشرية إلى عصرنا هذا.
ولنتخيل أن إنسان كهف قرر في يوم ما أن يبني كوخًا من الخشب بدلا من العيش في العراء، ولكنه لم يسمح لأحد من قبيلته بتقليده (فهي فكرته وحده) إلا إذا دفعوا له بعض الثمار أولا!
من ناحية دور النشر:
قارن المؤرخ الألماني "إريك هوفنر" بين المجتمع الإنجليزي والمجتمع الألماني في أواخر القرن التاسع عشر وأوائل القرن العشرين. أولهما كان يطبق قوانين الملكية الفكرية بصرامة، بينما الآخر لم يطبقها من الأساس. وجد هذا الباحث أن المجتمع الألماني أنتج في هذه الفترة 14000 كتابًا وبحثًا علميًا في العام الواحد، بينما أنتج المجتمع الإنجليزي 1000 فقط! هل تضررت دور النشر الكبرى؟ بالعكس، فقد خلق هذا الطوفان المعرفي من الكتب زهيدة الثمن أرضية واسعة من القراء الذين يرغبون بشدة في الأعمال الجديدة وبأعداد كبيرة، وبالطبع لم تكن دور النشر الصغيرة (التي كانت تقتصر على تقليد الكتب) قادرة على توفير ما يريد القراء، فازدادت نسب توزيع دور النشر الكبرى ومكاسب المؤلفين وجنوا أرباحًا أكثر من أقرانهم الإنجليز. ولم يقتصر أثر إلغاء حقوق الملكية الفكرية على زيادة ثقافة الشعب الألماني وازدياد عدد الكتب المتداولة، وإنما وصلت ألمانيا (الناشئة حديثًا) إلى نهضة علمية لحقت بإنجلترا التي بدأت ثورتها العلمية قبل ذلك بقرنين على الأقل!
ثانيًا: تقليد الأعمال الفنية والمخترعات ونشرها يضعف توزيع المنتج الأصلي وبالتالي لن ينتج مثله مجددا
زعم خاطئ، فلم يحدث إلى الآن أن توقف كاتب واحد او مسلسل أو فيلم أو أي عمل إبداعي على الإطلاق بسبب قرصنته، ولم تقل أرباحه عن المتوقع، وأحيانًا يشتهر العمل بسبب تداوله بنسخ زهيدة الثمن.
ثالثًا: حقوق الملكية الفكرية تعزز التنافس وتدعم الاقتصاد
أصدرت لجنة تابعة للكونجرس الأمريكي في 2012 تقريرًا ينفي هذا الزعم أيضًا، ويؤكد أن النظام الحالي يقمع التنافس لصالح الشركات الكبيرة، ويقتل مجالات وصناعات كاملة لم تنشأ خوفًا من الملاحقة القضائية. كما أن هذا النظام يكلف الشركات الأمريكية وحدها نحو 50 مليار دولار سنويًا في هيئة تكاليف تقاضي وأتعاب محامين وما إلى ذلك.
وأكدت اللجنة أن احتكار الأفكار ليس السبيل الوحيد لدعم الإبداع، فتقليل الضرائب على الأعمال الإبداعية كفيل بذلك وبنشر المعرفة بين البشر دون الإضرار بالاقتصاد.
الخلاصة:
انتهاك ما يسمى "حقوق الملكية الفكرية" لا تصح تسميته بالسرقة، فهي كما أوضحنا جريمة تختص بالموارد المستنفدة فقط، وهو لا يضر بالمؤلف ولا بدور النشر أو الشركات، ولا يقضي على الإبداع.
التداول الحر للمعرفة هو الحق الأصيل لكل إنسان
حرية نقل المعلومات ليست قرصنة
القراءة والبحث عن العلم أينما كان عبادة وليست جريمة
ما هي الملكية الفكرية؟
هي ببساطة أن من يأتي بفكرة أو عمل فني أو اختراع ما له الحق في منع كل فرد من نسخ هذا العمل أو تطويره أو تقليده (وهو مفهوم يختلف عن حق المؤلف في نسبة ثمرة فكره إليه لأن الكثيرين يخلطون بينهما) أي أنه الحق في احتكار كل منتج عن فكرة ما (كاحتكار إنتاج كتاب ما) وهو بهذا المعنى يهدف لحماية الربح لا حماية المؤلف أو المبدع كما يروّج.
هل الملكية الفكرية أمر بديهي؟
بالطبع لا، فمنشأها كان في أوروبا في القرن السادس عشر، وكانت تسمى "حقوق الاحتكار"، أي أن يأتي تاجر ما ويطلب من الملك أن يتمتع بالحقوق الملكية للشاي مثلا نظير مبلغ معين، وبهذا الشكل يقضي هذا التاجر على المنافسة ويحق له توزيع الشاي متفردًا بالربح، بل وأن يستغل قوة الدولة في التنكيل بمنافسيه.
ثم تطور المفهوم بعد انتشار الطباعة ليصبح حق احتكار أيضًا ولكن لدور النشر التي يتعاقد معها المؤلفون، فلا يحق لغيرها طباعة إصدارات هذا المؤلف أو ذاك.
إذن فهو أمر وليد مجتمع معين، ولم تمارسه أي حضارة أخرى سوى الحضارة الاوروبية الحديثة (فكر مثلا ماذا سيكون حالنا لو احتكر الصينيون صناعة الحرير، والعرب صناعة الورق، وجاءت كل أمة تدعي الملكية الفكرية لمبدعيها، هل كان التراث اليوناني ليبقى لو لم يحفظه الفرس ويترجمه العرب ويطوروه دون انتظار إذن مؤلفيه أو ورثتهم؟).
هل الملكية الفكرية حق طبيعي؟
لا أيضًا، الملكية الحقيقية الوحيدة تكون للموارد النادرة، أي التي تستنفد، فمثلا إذا أخذ كل شخص قطعة أرض فإن الأراضي ستنفد، فوجب تنظيم الملكية بأسلوب يكفل حفاظ كل على حقه. ولو افترضنا أن الأرض تمتد إلى ما لا نهاية فلن يكون هناك معنى للملكية أصلا. بنفس الطريقة فإن المجردات أو ثمار الذهن لا تنفد، إذا افترضنا أن هناك من ابتكر ابتكارًا ما، وقلده جميع أهل الأرض، فإن الفكرة ستظل كما هي في رأسه ويستطيع استخدامها كما يشاء، وكذلك من يؤلف كتابًا، فإنه يشكل الكلمات بترتيب معين وليد عقله، ولو قرأه البشر أجمعين لظل هذا الترتيب ملكه لا ينتقص.
القضية إذًا هي قضية الربح فقط لا قضية نسبة الملكية، لننظر إذًا فيما يقال عن ضرورة الحفاظ على الملكية الفكرية لتحقيق الربح.
أولا: لولا حقوق الملكية الفكرية لما وجد الأدباء دافعًا لنشر أدبهم ولأحجمت دور النشر عن العمل.
من ناحية الأدباء:
لو صح ذلك لما قرر إنسان الكهف في يوم ما أن يطور أدواته، وأن يبتكر الادوات ويرتقي إلى أن وصل الإنسان إلى ما هو عليه اليوم. الإبداع ليس قائمًا على تربح المبدع، ونحن نجد مثلا أن آينشتاين الذي كان يعيش في سويسرا (لم تطبق قوانين حقوق الملكية آنذاك) توصل إلى نظريته عن النسبية ونشرها دون حافز الربح، وكذلك كل الابتكارات البشرية إلى عصرنا هذا.
ولنتخيل أن إنسان كهف قرر في يوم ما أن يبني كوخًا من الخشب بدلا من العيش في العراء، ولكنه لم يسمح لأحد من قبيلته بتقليده (فهي فكرته وحده) إلا إذا دفعوا له بعض الثمار أولا!
من ناحية دور النشر:
قارن المؤرخ الألماني "إريك هوفنر" بين المجتمع الإنجليزي والمجتمع الألماني في أواخر القرن التاسع عشر وأوائل القرن العشرين. أولهما كان يطبق قوانين الملكية الفكرية بصرامة، بينما الآخر لم يطبقها من الأساس. وجد هذا الباحث أن المجتمع الألماني أنتج في هذه الفترة 14000 كتابًا وبحثًا علميًا في العام الواحد، بينما أنتج المجتمع الإنجليزي 1000 فقط! هل تضررت دور النشر الكبرى؟ بالعكس، فقد خلق هذا الطوفان المعرفي من الكتب زهيدة الثمن أرضية واسعة من القراء الذين يرغبون بشدة في الأعمال الجديدة وبأعداد كبيرة، وبالطبع لم تكن دور النشر الصغيرة (التي كانت تقتصر على تقليد الكتب) قادرة على توفير ما يريد القراء، فازدادت نسب توزيع دور النشر الكبرى ومكاسب المؤلفين وجنوا أرباحًا أكثر من أقرانهم الإنجليز. ولم يقتصر أثر إلغاء حقوق الملكية الفكرية على زيادة ثقافة الشعب الألماني وازدياد عدد الكتب المتداولة، وإنما وصلت ألمانيا (الناشئة حديثًا) إلى نهضة علمية لحقت بإنجلترا التي بدأت ثورتها العلمية قبل ذلك بقرنين على الأقل!
ثانيًا: تقليد الأعمال الفنية والمخترعات ونشرها يضعف توزيع المنتج الأصلي وبالتالي لن ينتج مثله مجددا
زعم خاطئ، فلم يحدث إلى الآن أن توقف كاتب واحد او مسلسل أو فيلم أو أي عمل إبداعي على الإطلاق بسبب قرصنته، ولم تقل أرباحه عن المتوقع، وأحيانًا يشتهر العمل بسبب تداوله بنسخ زهيدة الثمن.
ثالثًا: حقوق الملكية الفكرية تعزز التنافس وتدعم الاقتصاد
أصدرت لجنة تابعة للكونجرس الأمريكي في 2012 تقريرًا ينفي هذا الزعم أيضًا، ويؤكد أن النظام الحالي يقمع التنافس لصالح الشركات الكبيرة، ويقتل مجالات وصناعات كاملة لم تنشأ خوفًا من الملاحقة القضائية. كما أن هذا النظام يكلف الشركات الأمريكية وحدها نحو 50 مليار دولار سنويًا في هيئة تكاليف تقاضي وأتعاب محامين وما إلى ذلك.
وأكدت اللجنة أن احتكار الأفكار ليس السبيل الوحيد لدعم الإبداع، فتقليل الضرائب على الأعمال الإبداعية كفيل بذلك وبنشر المعرفة بين البشر دون الإضرار بالاقتصاد.
الخلاصة:
انتهاك ما يسمى "حقوق الملكية الفكرية" لا تصح تسميته بالسرقة، فهي كما أوضحنا جريمة تختص بالموارد المستنفدة فقط، وهو لا يضر بالمؤلف ولا بدور النشر أو الشركات، ولا يقضي على الإبداع.
التداول الحر للمعرفة هو الحق الأصيل لكل إنسان
حرية نقل المعلومات ليست قرصنة
القراءة والبحث عن العلم أينما كان عبادة وليست جريمة
April 23, 2016
I've always had a major problem with Intellectual Property, as a concept. But in a world full of people who not only accept IP laws, but argue that they are necessary for functioning society, I've always felt my opinion needed a great deal of fleshing out before I was willing to engage other people in discussion about it. Having such a small minority opinion means I better have thought it all the way through.
It's often been hard for me to put into words what my objection is. I often tell people that property must physically exist to be called "property" and inventing a contradictory term like "intellectual property" in order to call copying something "theft" is like calling premarital sex "consensual rape" in order to call it illegal. Beyond that, and occasionally singing the words to "Copying is Not Theft", I've often been at a loss for expressing my view, which I felt very alone in having.
Finding this book (pamphlet really) was like a heavenly light shining through the clouds. It perfectly puts my views on Intellectual Property, and its inherently contradictory nature, into words. I finally have a bunch of good analogies for explaining my views, and I no longer feel like a complete loner in my view.
To make things better, it turns out that Kinsella's view of IP is not only compatible with, but naturally flows from libertarianism. As a (lower-case l) libertarian, I was happy to discover that two viewpoints that I hold, which seemed related, actually are very closely related.
All in all, the book is clear, short, and makes a solid argument against Intellectual Property. It includes summaries of arguments in favor of IP, then dismantles them quickly. If I could make everyone in the world read one book, I'd probably make them read this one.
It's often been hard for me to put into words what my objection is. I often tell people that property must physically exist to be called "property" and inventing a contradictory term like "intellectual property" in order to call copying something "theft" is like calling premarital sex "consensual rape" in order to call it illegal. Beyond that, and occasionally singing the words to "Copying is Not Theft", I've often been at a loss for expressing my view, which I felt very alone in having.
Finding this book (pamphlet really) was like a heavenly light shining through the clouds. It perfectly puts my views on Intellectual Property, and its inherently contradictory nature, into words. I finally have a bunch of good analogies for explaining my views, and I no longer feel like a complete loner in my view.
To make things better, it turns out that Kinsella's view of IP is not only compatible with, but naturally flows from libertarianism. As a (lower-case l) libertarian, I was happy to discover that two viewpoints that I hold, which seemed related, actually are very closely related.
All in all, the book is clear, short, and makes a solid argument against Intellectual Property. It includes summaries of arguments in favor of IP, then dismantles them quickly. If I could make everyone in the world read one book, I'd probably make them read this one.
December 18, 2015
Got about halfway through and gave it up as a bad job.
Kinsella doesn't really make an argument here; he simply repeatedly begs the question. This is most stark in his assertion that property rights arise from the need to resolve conflict over scarcity and then dismissal those who argue in favor of rights arising from creation by simply pointing back to the assertion, but is also implicit in his repeated focus on IP rights curtailing tangible rights: one could just as well say that a so-called "right" to your body curtails my right to use my gun however I wish, and without further differentiation and delimiting of what it means to have a right to use your property "however you wish" that can't be disputed.
The presentation of opposing viewpoints also struck me as fairly strawmanned, made worse by Kinsella's mediocre responses to them. In particular, his presentation of IP-as-contract and reserved rights seemed particularly unfair, framing proponents as believing in some magical essence of uncopyableness and completely failing to engage with the actual theory.
Most frustratingly, though, this book was just so damn abstract and ungrounded. Kinsella talks in broad general principles without ever giving us a sense of what specifically he means by them. His argument reads like a deduction from first premises, not a conclusion from experience with the world. I wish he had walked us through the normal case that gives rise to IP, and what results the enforcement of that IP has, and why those results are inherent in the IP, rather than just saying "Scarcity therefore rights violation therefore wrong".
This book might possibly work as a polemical for those who already agree with Kinsella and know his framework. But given its presentation as a general answer to the question of whether a libertarian society would recognize IP, it falls extremely flat.
Kinsella doesn't really make an argument here; he simply repeatedly begs the question. This is most stark in his assertion that property rights arise from the need to resolve conflict over scarcity and then dismissal those who argue in favor of rights arising from creation by simply pointing back to the assertion, but is also implicit in his repeated focus on IP rights curtailing tangible rights: one could just as well say that a so-called "right" to your body curtails my right to use my gun however I wish, and without further differentiation and delimiting of what it means to have a right to use your property "however you wish" that can't be disputed.
The presentation of opposing viewpoints also struck me as fairly strawmanned, made worse by Kinsella's mediocre responses to them. In particular, his presentation of IP-as-contract and reserved rights seemed particularly unfair, framing proponents as believing in some magical essence of uncopyableness and completely failing to engage with the actual theory.
Most frustratingly, though, this book was just so damn abstract and ungrounded. Kinsella talks in broad general principles without ever giving us a sense of what specifically he means by them. His argument reads like a deduction from first premises, not a conclusion from experience with the world. I wish he had walked us through the normal case that gives rise to IP, and what results the enforcement of that IP has, and why those results are inherent in the IP, rather than just saying "Scarcity therefore rights violation therefore wrong".
This book might possibly work as a polemical for those who already agree with Kinsella and know his framework. But given its presentation as a general answer to the question of whether a libertarian society would recognize IP, it falls extremely flat.
August 6, 2018
Kinsella expões os argumentos de ambos os lados, especialmente de libertários, a favor e contra a propriedade intelectual. A favor, como exemplo, "o homem tem direito ao fruto do seu trabalho", mas a primeira ocupação (homesteading), e não o trabalho, é o modo pelo qual coisas externas se tornam propriedade, além de que o objeto ideal (PI), não é passível de apropriação. Além disso, criar um produto com matérias de terceiros não te dá a posse do item (Adam Smith/Marx?). Outros utilitaristas dizem q maximizaria o lucro. Mas a maximização do lucro não é o alvo da lei, e sim a justiça.
A PI sobre ideias leva a absurdos, como ter que pagar/pedir permissão para os descendentes de Thomas Edison a cada vez que quisermos utilizar uma lâmpada, ou para utilizar técnicas de combate à afogamento, obter licenças pelos descendentes do criador da fervura da água, para fazer pratos culinários precisaríamos de uma licença por conta de possíveis patentes, etc.
PI não é possível pois não se refere a recursos escassos, origem dos conflitos interpessoais, explicado por Hoppe.
Se não há definição clara de propriedade ou há violação aos direitos de propriedade, não há como haver justiça. Se não houvesse escassez, em um Jardim do Éden, não haveria necessidade do conceito de propriedade. O privilégio monopolístico gera uma escassez artificial onde não existia antes.
Kinsella lembra que Hoppe mostrou que não se pode ter direito de propriedade sobre o valor da propriedade de alguém, mas apenas sobre sua integridade física.
Já fui bem mais a favor da propriedade intelectual, mas hoje já tendo pro lado contrário, por motivos éticos, ainda que à nível de utilitarianismo também me parece que seria mais benéfica sua abolição.
A PI sobre ideias leva a absurdos, como ter que pagar/pedir permissão para os descendentes de Thomas Edison a cada vez que quisermos utilizar uma lâmpada, ou para utilizar técnicas de combate à afogamento, obter licenças pelos descendentes do criador da fervura da água, para fazer pratos culinários precisaríamos de uma licença por conta de possíveis patentes, etc.
PI não é possível pois não se refere a recursos escassos, origem dos conflitos interpessoais, explicado por Hoppe.
Se não há definição clara de propriedade ou há violação aos direitos de propriedade, não há como haver justiça. Se não houvesse escassez, em um Jardim do Éden, não haveria necessidade do conceito de propriedade. O privilégio monopolístico gera uma escassez artificial onde não existia antes.
Kinsella lembra que Hoppe mostrou que não se pode ter direito de propriedade sobre o valor da propriedade de alguém, mas apenas sobre sua integridade física.
Já fui bem mais a favor da propriedade intelectual, mas hoje já tendo pro lado contrário, por motivos éticos, ainda que à nível de utilitarianismo também me parece que seria mais benéfica sua abolição.
July 28, 2016
Bastante interesante, Kinsella demuestra que la propiedad sobre las ideas no pueden existir, por la sencilla razón de que el uso que una persona le da a una idea no puede evitar que el resto la use al mismo tiempo. A fin de cuentas, es un monopolio mercantilista. Todo sistema de propiedad intelectual acaba violando los derechos de propiedad material, ya que precisamente son estos quienes afectan a todo bien tangible, su inconcreción da origen a muchos conflictos. Hay que destacar que este libro está basado en el marco legal estadounidense, por lo demás es bastante fácil de leer y contiene muchos ejemplos de patentes absurdas.
January 15, 2016
O livro é uma excelente provocação libertária sobre a questão da Propriedade Intelectual.
Como especialista na área, Kinsella inicia com uma breve explicação sobre os diferentes tipos de PI (direitos autorais, patentes, segredos comerciais, marcas registradas, etc). Daí em diante, o autor combate as visões utilitaristas e jusnaturalistas sobre o tema.
Apesar de reconhecer que a obra é bastante interessante, rica em referências e que desafia outras visões sobre PI, seu argumento não foi suficiente para me fazer abandonar a visão randiana sobre o tema.
Como especialista na área, Kinsella inicia com uma breve explicação sobre os diferentes tipos de PI (direitos autorais, patentes, segredos comerciais, marcas registradas, etc). Daí em diante, o autor combate as visões utilitaristas e jusnaturalistas sobre o tema.
Apesar de reconhecer que a obra é bastante interessante, rica em referências e que desafia outras visões sobre PI, seu argumento não foi suficiente para me fazer abandonar a visão randiana sobre o tema.
May 13, 2014
Valió la pena releer este texto a propósito de un trabajo para la universidad referente al tema de la propiedad intelectual y sus apóstoles. Importante para repensar muchos temas que hoy se dan por sentado, en especial en lo que concierne a las patentes y a la creación artificial de escasez que supone establecer derechos de propiedad en bienes intangibles y que no son apropiables. Jefferson, como casi siempre, tenía razón.
July 14, 2012
Before I read this book I wasn't exactely sure what side of the issue I was on, but the moment I read this, I knew where I stood and would never condone IP in any shape or form. If your looking for a convincing,to the point argument against IP this is the book.
April 28, 2013
Kinsella made some reasonable and intelligent arguments. Though I'm not a general fan of the libertarian philosophy -- and so I think there needs to be some adjustment before his theories could be implemented in practice -- I do respect the argument he lays out against intellectual property.
September 30, 2017
great book. Shed a light on a lot of concepts one can easily confuse about IP. I'm still laughing at the "methods at exercising a cat" patent, even though I probably should be crying. IP laws are a joke.
June 6, 2018
A great introduction to the case against intellectual property. The only downside of the book is that it requires some prior understanding of libertarian theory and thought. Also beware of the ugly one-page footnotes.
April 14, 2011
I'm not sure I agree with everything in this book, but it really made me think.
January 4, 2012
Excellent book that cites the challenges facing modern i.p. law but sadly the author doesn't give a workable solution to the problem he so carefully outlines. Great read.
September 14, 2012
This book left me with a lot more questions.
September 2, 2016
Hits many important anti-IP points, but I expected a much longer read.
September 8, 2018
Seminal work on the incompatibility of intellectual property with the principles of libertarianism and property rights. Highly recommended to anyone interested in either of those two subjects.
February 2, 2019
Slam dunk.
December 1, 2022
Beautiful. Brilliantly argued. Concise yet comprehensive. Profoundly insightful yet extremely simple. Logical. Incredibly persuasive.
Must read for all libertarians.
Must read for all libertarians.
March 25, 2023
N. Stephan Kinsella is a libertarian writer and registered patent attorney in Houston. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law.
I first heard him on Tom Woods’ show (#2145), then read this book, Against Intellectual Property. It’s a great—and short—book, an excellent description for the layman of what, exactly, IP is, and then some of the most innovative arguments for abolishing IP. This is such a multi-layered topic, hard to do it all justice in a short review. Property rights are essentially “how we determine who owns things.”
This includes, obviously, tangible things (what economists call rival assets, and Stephan calls “conflictable”) are easy to understand—you own your land, house, car, your body, etc.
These things are scarce and can cause conflict, plus they can be consumed, whereas Intellectual Property (IP) cannot.
Intangible things get a lot fuzzier—non-rival assets, they can be in more than one place at a time, and they are not consumable. Things such as your reputations, and the big ones in IP are Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Copyrights and Patents are protected in the US Constitution “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Here are some characteristics of each:
Copyright: protects form or expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves (Term: life of author + 70 years); 95 years for employers.
Patents: Only grants right to exclude, not right to use (20 years from original filing date) use to be 17. It used to be first-to-invent, not first-to-file, but this has been changed and is now first-to-file, like it is in most of the world. You cannot patent laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.
Trade Secret: For example, Coca-Cola, mostly protected under State law, and recent Fed law to prevent theft. Theoretically, someone could re-engineer the Coke formula, patent it, and prevent Coke from using it.
Trademark: Brand, etc. Term: 10 years. Based on interstate commerce clause, and renewable.
There are two main arguments for IP rights:
1. Natural rights (Ayn Rand, etc., product of the mind)
2. Utilitarian (Judge Richard Posner, David Friedman, etc.)
1. But IP isn’t “created”. Creation is a form of wealth, it’s not a source of ownership. It’s neither necessary nor sufficient to justify ownership. If I put my sweat into this land (as John Locke wrote about), it similar to a labor theory of property rights. But occupancy, not labor, is how things become property. Labor is an action, it’s not ownable.
2. Since when is goal to maximize wealth, rather than justice. Besides, there’s no empirical evidence that patents and copyrights lead to more innovation, or even wealth creation.
One of the most innovative arguments in the book is that IP rights give partial rights of control over the tangible property of everyone else, thus, it’s a trespass or a takings. If someone patens a method for digging a well, that will exclude me from using my property to dig the same type of well. As Stephan points out, positive rights don’t add to negative rights, it reduces them. Plus, one cannot have a property right in the value of one’s property, only in its physical integrity. The subjective theory of value means many things can arbitrarily have value (the USPS monopoly on 1st class mail, e.g.).
Would abolishing IP lessen innovation? Fashion, perfumes and a host of other industries operate with tremendous innovation yet no IP. But what about drugs? I used to believe IP was essential in this sector, but I am less convinced and would be willing to experiment with out IP protection and see what happens. Granted, I’d also like to abolish the FDA, or convert it into an Underwriters Laboratory model, but as Stephan and others have pointed out Switzerland and Italy dominated pharmaceuticals for 50 years without patents.
IP does seem arbitrary. We grant it to entertainers, songwriters but not scientists, philosophers, and researchers. Ideas in one’s head are not “owned” any more than labor is owned. Only scarce resources are owned. Stephan’s not too worried about “non-practicing entities”, so called patent trolls because they are a small part of the problem.
Another innovative argument is that Trademarks doesn’t stop fraud, nor does it compensate the real victim. If I open a fake McDonald’s, the harmed consumers should get damages, not McDonalds.
Lastly, removing all IP protection would not require an Amendment to the Constitution, only an act of Congress.
We had the pleasure of interviewing Stephan on The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy show on March 24, 2023. Here is the link:
https://www.thesoulofenterprise.com/t...
I first heard him on Tom Woods’ show (#2145), then read this book, Against Intellectual Property. It’s a great—and short—book, an excellent description for the layman of what, exactly, IP is, and then some of the most innovative arguments for abolishing IP. This is such a multi-layered topic, hard to do it all justice in a short review. Property rights are essentially “how we determine who owns things.”
This includes, obviously, tangible things (what economists call rival assets, and Stephan calls “conflictable”) are easy to understand—you own your land, house, car, your body, etc.
These things are scarce and can cause conflict, plus they can be consumed, whereas Intellectual Property (IP) cannot.
Intangible things get a lot fuzzier—non-rival assets, they can be in more than one place at a time, and they are not consumable. Things such as your reputations, and the big ones in IP are Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Copyrights and Patents are protected in the US Constitution “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Here are some characteristics of each:
Copyright: protects form or expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves (Term: life of author + 70 years); 95 years for employers.
Patents: Only grants right to exclude, not right to use (20 years from original filing date) use to be 17. It used to be first-to-invent, not first-to-file, but this has been changed and is now first-to-file, like it is in most of the world. You cannot patent laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.
Trade Secret: For example, Coca-Cola, mostly protected under State law, and recent Fed law to prevent theft. Theoretically, someone could re-engineer the Coke formula, patent it, and prevent Coke from using it.
Trademark: Brand, etc. Term: 10 years. Based on interstate commerce clause, and renewable.
There are two main arguments for IP rights:
1. Natural rights (Ayn Rand, etc., product of the mind)
2. Utilitarian (Judge Richard Posner, David Friedman, etc.)
1. But IP isn’t “created”. Creation is a form of wealth, it’s not a source of ownership. It’s neither necessary nor sufficient to justify ownership. If I put my sweat into this land (as John Locke wrote about), it similar to a labor theory of property rights. But occupancy, not labor, is how things become property. Labor is an action, it’s not ownable.
2. Since when is goal to maximize wealth, rather than justice. Besides, there’s no empirical evidence that patents and copyrights lead to more innovation, or even wealth creation.
One of the most innovative arguments in the book is that IP rights give partial rights of control over the tangible property of everyone else, thus, it’s a trespass or a takings. If someone patens a method for digging a well, that will exclude me from using my property to dig the same type of well. As Stephan points out, positive rights don’t add to negative rights, it reduces them. Plus, one cannot have a property right in the value of one’s property, only in its physical integrity. The subjective theory of value means many things can arbitrarily have value (the USPS monopoly on 1st class mail, e.g.).
Would abolishing IP lessen innovation? Fashion, perfumes and a host of other industries operate with tremendous innovation yet no IP. But what about drugs? I used to believe IP was essential in this sector, but I am less convinced and would be willing to experiment with out IP protection and see what happens. Granted, I’d also like to abolish the FDA, or convert it into an Underwriters Laboratory model, but as Stephan and others have pointed out Switzerland and Italy dominated pharmaceuticals for 50 years without patents.
IP does seem arbitrary. We grant it to entertainers, songwriters but not scientists, philosophers, and researchers. Ideas in one’s head are not “owned” any more than labor is owned. Only scarce resources are owned. Stephan’s not too worried about “non-practicing entities”, so called patent trolls because they are a small part of the problem.
Another innovative argument is that Trademarks doesn’t stop fraud, nor does it compensate the real victim. If I open a fake McDonald’s, the harmed consumers should get damages, not McDonalds.
Lastly, removing all IP protection would not require an Amendment to the Constitution, only an act of Congress.
We had the pleasure of interviewing Stephan on The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy show on March 24, 2023. Here is the link:
https://www.thesoulofenterprise.com/t...
August 29, 2011
The agents of banks, huge multinationals, and China are at it again trying to brain wash America.
In Federalist No. 43, James Madison wrote regarding constitutional rights of inventors, "The utility of the clause will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of the individuals."
"patent reform"
Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is.
The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??
Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. The bill will make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help in the fight to defeat this bill should contact us as below.
Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.... for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/
In Federalist No. 43, James Madison wrote regarding constitutional rights of inventors, "The utility of the clause will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of the individuals."
"patent reform"
Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is.
The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??
Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. The bill will make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help in the fight to defeat this bill should contact us as below.
Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.... for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/
April 26, 2021
Stephan Kinsella es un abogado de patentes que nos plantea si una sociedad libertaria deberia reconocer las patentes como legítimas y nos explica que sucede con el Copyright.
Kinsella es un opositor del concepto de «propiedad intelectual», por lo que nos detalla su punto de vista en esta breve obra.
En este corto libro nos explica como es la escasez natural la da lugar a la necesidad de normas de propiedad, y como, por tanto, las leyes de propiedad intelectual crean una escasez artificial e injustificable donde no debería haber, pues el pensamiento e ideas no son escasos.
Pensar en esto hace notar los monopolios injustificables sobre las patentes y derecho de autor, que cierran la posibilidad a la creación de otras personas
Este privilegio monopolístico y censura se encuentran en la raíz histórica de las patentes y derechos de autor y es este mismo monopolio que crea una escasez artificial donde antes no existía
Kinsella es un opositor del concepto de «propiedad intelectual», por lo que nos detalla su punto de vista en esta breve obra.
En este corto libro nos explica como es la escasez natural la da lugar a la necesidad de normas de propiedad, y como, por tanto, las leyes de propiedad intelectual crean una escasez artificial e injustificable donde no debería haber, pues el pensamiento e ideas no son escasos.
Pensar en esto hace notar los monopolios injustificables sobre las patentes y derecho de autor, que cierran la posibilidad a la creación de otras personas
Este privilegio monopolístico y censura se encuentran en la raíz histórica de las patentes y derechos de autor y es este mismo monopolio que crea una escasez artificial donde antes no existía
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews