You are on page 1of 79

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarchist libertarian writer who thinks patent and copyright should be abolished. AMA (self.IAmA)
submitted 15 days ago by nskinsella

I'm a practicing patent lawyer, and have written and spoken a good deal on libertarian and free market topics. I founded and am executive editor of Libertarian Papers (http://www.libertarianpapers.org/), and director of Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (http://c4sif.org/). I am a follower of the Austrian school of economics (as exemplified by Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe) and anarchist libertarian propertarianism, as exemplified by Rothbard and Hoppe. I believe in reason, individualism, the free market, technology, and society, and think the state is evil and should be abolished. I also believe intellectual property (patent and copyright) is completely unjust, statist, protectionist, and utterly incompatible with private property rights, capitalism, and the free market, and should not be reformed, but abolished. Ask me anything.
2336 comments share

top 500 comments


sorted by: best
[] skillip 21 points 15 days ago*

Can voluntary user agreements create results similar to copyright/patents? If not, how? If so, are they consistent with you free market principals?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 43 points 14 days ago

No, they cannot. Contracts are just transfers of title to owned scarce resources, and they cannot, in any event, affect third parties. I deal wit this in the reserved rights section of Against Intellectual Property, at www.c4sif.org
permalink parent [] donjuancho 7 points 14 days ago*

There could be voluntary agreements, such as a Non-disclosure agreement(NDA). You could 1 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

a Non-disclosure agreement(NDA). You could have each company that is interested in your product sign this. This would say that they can't make your product unless they agree to your terms and they can't disclose to others any of the information you send them. If they break the agreement you are entitled to a certain amount of money based on the contract. I believe this would fit with the contract theory of property. Edit:Grammer
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] acusticthoughts 30 points 15 days ago*

How do we balance the need for individuals who invest great amounts of time in techniques and technologies that don't have the ability to go to a broad market with those who do? The best illustration would be someone like Edison who had the connections to get things to the world but didn't necessarily invent them. If we keep technologies secret until we figure out how to make money off of them - might we miss out on much? It seems like the patenting ability gives legal protection to put your ideas out there. And an NDA doesn't seem the same as worldwide patent protection. Of course, there is much potential benefit I see from so many who have put all of their plans and ideas out there (free music for one that leads toward concerts, etc). Seems like with the current system the little guy benefits at a certain point and then begins to lose out at a certain point to the big guys... What is your basic philosophy on how to get ideas to the marketplace?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 55 points 14 days ago

the purpose of law is to protect property rights, not to ensure entrepreneurs of every type can make a profit; that is their job. but for some ideas of what is possible, see http://c4sif.org /2012/01/conversation-with-an-author-aboutcopyright-and-publishing-in-a-free-society/
permalink parent [] acusticthoughts 14 points 14 days ago

Two points - 1. Are the things we have spent our personal time on not our property? 2. How do we balance the free information concept with the fact that we do need to make money to exist in this world. If we couldn't make money in the world we wouldn't be able to buy food. No 2 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... world we wouldn't be able to buy food. No food no science.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

As a side - I want all knowledge to be free because I believe the long term benefits are multiplied so greatly that any individual would benefit so much more than if they were to hold it close. However, we still live at a point where the prisoner's dilemma is real and to give it up usually means individual loss.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 36 points 14 days ago

spending time on something does not generate property rights. you don't own your labor, or your work. you only own your body and other scarce resoures that you (a) homestaed from their unowned state in nature, or (b) you acquire by contract from a previous owner. That's all you can or do own. Nothing else. Creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for property; this is a mistaken notion, as is Locke's confused labor theory of property which gave rise to Marxist crap.
permalink parent [] acusticthoughts 25 points 14 days ago*

Why do I not own my labor or my work? If both of those things are direct by products of my own choices and my own body (and my labor and my work are scarce resources that I am homesteading from the earth if you want to get technical) - then it seems they are my property. Especially since my body and my time is a scarce resource. If we want to play the contract game - that seems kinda trivial compared to natural law. I am the possessor of this body, this body can do X, Y and Z. I am the one who chooses what to do, as such, anything I do is mine. How are these things not mine?
permalink parent [] legba 15 points 14 days ago

I think what Stephan means is that your work isn't tangible property. You have to apply your labor in a productive manner to shape a scarce resource to useful purpose before your work is transformed into your property. For example, you could spend a day digging holes and filling them back up, thus expending your labor for no tangible result. On the other hand, you could put seeds into those holes before you filled them up, and then tend to the plants that grow from them, and those plants (and their fruit) would be considered your property. Labor 3 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

them, and those plants (and their fruit) would be considered your property. Labor on its own is nothing unless it creates tangible results.
permalink parent [] thizzacre 3 points 13 days ago

Value is created by work; price is created by supply and demand. The value of a sound recording might be quite high, and the demand may also be quite high. The problem is that without creating artificial scarcity, the supply is infinite. Therefore the free market is not be able to compensate the people who have created the value.
permalink parent [] legba 3 points 13 days ago

That's not quite true. The supply is only theoretically infinite, yet in practice it requires distribution. Take for example a simple item like a metal nail. For all intents and purposes, the supply of nails is infinite, since there are so many producers, it's so easy to produce and the material that it's made of is so cheap and plentiful that the price of the individual nail is almost negligible. And yet, despite all this, nail producers are still able to make a profit by creating them. It's because the distribution is NOT infinite, nor can it be. If you need nails, you'll probably go to a hardware store, or order them from a hardware store. You won't go to a newsstand or a bakery to buy nails. In the same way, content producers could continue making profit by focusing on distribution, rather than the product itself. Yes, I can go and download a movie or a song from wherever I want even now. The legal repercussion of such an act is almost non-existent. Why then, do I still pay for Netflix, Hulu, and buy music and apps on iTunes, etc.? Because I value my time more. I want these things delivered to me whenever I want them, in a way I prefer. So piracy really isn't a problem of supply, it's problem of distribution and availability.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (11 replies) [] buffalo_pete 15 points 14 days ago

(Not /u/nskinsella.) Why do I not own my labor or my work? You do, of course. If someone else duplicates your work, that's their labor and their work and they own it. For instance, if I make a digital copy of a piece of music, that's my hard drive and my electricity and my time. None of those things are yours. I'm not taking anything away from you; you still have everything you had before.
permalink parent [] acusticthoughts 7 points 14 days ago

If I make that piece of music and then you copy it - you are gaining the majority of your benefit from my work. You are taking from me the opportunity to earn tangible benefit from my labor.
permalink parent [] buffalo_pete 10 points 14 days ago

you are gaining the majority of your benefit from my work. This is immaterial. I am not taking anything away from you. You are taking from me the opportunity to earn tangible benefit from my labor. I am certainly not. I am in no way depriving you of the opportunity to benefit from your labor. I can't stop you from selling music or performing 4 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

benefit from your labor. I can't stop you from selling music or performing concerts.
permalink parent [] acusticthoughts 4 points 14 days ago

You have taken the product that I created and you are now going into a market that should be mine - because I am the one who created the product. If a single person gives you their money for my product you have removed from me the potential of that piece of the market and hurt my potential to gain from my work. Just stopping me physically is not the only way to harm me - removing the opportunity to use my work by saturating the market with my product and taking the profits before i can is the same.
permalink parent [] buffalo_pete 6 points 14 days ago

You have taken the product that I created I have not. You still have it. If a single person gives you their money for my product you have removed from me the potential of that piece of the market and hurt my potential to gain from my work. You have no right to potential profits. EDIT: It's also not your product. You still have that.
permalink parent

load more comments (80 replies) [] TheRealPariah 2 points 14 days ago

Let's say you construct 1 million generic chairs and I produce 1 million more chairs. I have thus reduced the opportunity to earn tangible benefits from your property. Have I taken something from you? Have I stolen from you? Why do you deserve a certain value for your labor? This stinks of labor theory of value and this has been debunked for at least five decades. In other circumstances (such as the above one), you recognize this. Your labor has no inherent worth and thus you cannot own a certain value for it and others cannot "take" it from you.
permalink parent

load more comments (10 replies) [] Krackor 4 points 14 days ago*

Why do I not own my labor or my work? Mostly because "labor" and "work" are not things. They are actions, not objects. The exclusivity of property applies only to objects. Your actions cannot be taken away from you like your possessions can be. If you want to discuss legal rights with respect to your labor and work, you'll need to find a different concept other than "property" or "own".
permalink parent

load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (10 replies) [] libertatia 7 points 14 days ago

So what does "homesteading" consist of, and how does it create property rights, in the absence of a Locke-style labor-mixing theory?
permalink parent [] CanadianAnCap 2 points 14 days ago

5 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Not Stephen (ldo) Homesteading is when you mix your labour with unowned resources. Stephen's point, I believe, was with regards to this concept of 'creation'.
permalink parent [] libertatia 6 points 14 days ago

That doesn't answer my question really since Kinsella appears to reject the mechanisms of appropriation traditionally associated with labor-mixing. If you do not own your labor or its products, then it is not clear why "homesteading" is not pure expenditure.
permalink parent [] conn2005 2 points 14 days ago

The assumption that you could "homestead" an idea was some of the mercantile rubbish that made its way even through the classical economists and classical liberals.
permalink parent [] libertatia 3 points 14 days ago

Be that as it may, I'm still curious why Kinsella's apparently non-lockean "homesteading" is not rubbish.
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (13 replies) [] jevon 2 points 14 days ago

So you don't own your work, but you can own the property of others, but that property can't be their own work? What exactly do we get to own? Only tangible raw materials?
permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [] JamesCarlin 21 points 14 days ago

"the purpose of law is to protect property rights" This is only half-true. By saying "the purpose of the law is X" you implicitly seek to evade the other purposes and values implicit in law. The purposes of law are many-fold, as are the underlying human values. P.S. You appear to have left off "physical," since if I.P. were property, that would undermine your entire argument.
permalink parent [] GravyMcBiscuits 9 points 14 days ago

The purposes of law are many-fold, Perhaps that is the core problem?
permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies) [] nskinsella [S] 23 points 14 days ago

you cannot justify any right or law other than one that assigns exclusive property rights in an objectively fair manner to scarce resources. That is all.
permalink parent [] JamesCarlin 9 points 14 days ago

You just asserted a list of values/requirements you wish to attach to your own ideal form of law.

6 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

exclusivity property rights objectively fair scarce resources I don't resort to assertions of objective value (or morality, fair, etc), but presuming I were, I could easily "justify" (as well as anything can be justified) plenty of things which exist outside this narrow scope of law as you just defied (i.e. hacking, viruses, privacy, fraud, threats, etc). Even communists forms of property can be "justified" according to some standard - even if that standards are radically different from your (or my) values. Instead.... Demonstrate one objective value.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 28 points 14 days ago

If you refuse the validity of the concept of objectivity as it relates to preferabilities (fair/good/bad/wrong/should/etc.), then you cannot have a conversation about whether intellectual monopolies are good/bad/preferable /harmful. Given your belief system, all you can talk about is your own preferences regarding the matter at hand. And that's cool. But you cannot make truthbearing statements about them, because you would be in self-contradiction. This means that Kinsella does not need to demonstrate anything to you, and in fact that any demonstration you would reject a priori. So, why should he bother attempting?
permalink parent [] JamesCarlin 3 points 14 days ago

" then you cannot have a conversation about whether intellectual monopolies are good/bad/preferable/harmful." You are correct that without objective morality, a statement like "smoking is harmful" is illogical. What's missing is the answer to "for what?" or "why?" In other words, instead of saying "smoking is harmful" one might say "smoking is harmful for long-term health."
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] uglybunny 2 points 14 days ago*

Sure you can. Laws can be justified on the grounds that they provide the optimum outcome for the optimum number of individuals. Edit: Ironically, this is the justification used by libertarians of all stripes to favor free markets. They claim market mechanisms are the "most efficient" and that other options produce suboptimal results or have unintended consequences.
permalink parent [] GravyMcBiscuits 7 points 14 days ago

optimum outcome What is the objective measurement of this?


permalink parent [] alexanderwales 5 points 14 days ago

Assuming that the answer is "there is no objective measure", would that make it a poor justification for a law? 7 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

make it a poor justification for a law?


permalink parent [] GravyMcBiscuits 10 points 14 days ago

would that make it a poor justification for a law? I would say that is for you to decide. I will say that I think we (as a society) are entering dangerous territory when one subpopulation is allowed to start legislating based on its own vaguely-defined subjective measurements of what an "optimum outcome" would look like.
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] JamesCarlin 5 points 14 days ago

Show me an objective measure of value. It's a trick; there is no such thing as objective value - even the property rights and libertarian values proposed by kinsella are subjective.
permalink parent [] GravyMcBiscuits 5 points 14 days ago

Show me an objective measure of value There isn't one. That's why the state should not be legislating anything based on any perceived value or end-goal.
permalink parent

load more comments (11 replies) load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (4 replies) [] DeismAccountant 3 points 14 days ago

I done think there is any fair law that can be applied there period.
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) [] SouthernAnCap 12 points 14 days ago

Hi Dr. Kinsella. I have two questions. 1. I have seen much of what you have written on the issue of "voluntary slavery." However, I would like for you to address Dr. Block's hypothetical about the poor man who sells himself into slavery in exchange for a cure for his terminally ill son. Would the provision of the cure not constitute title transfer? If you have already responded to this, then a link will suffice. 2. You have also disagreed with Dr. Long and Dr. Block (the "Blockean Proviso") on hostile encirclement. In such a situation, what, if any, recourse would a person have, besides digging a tunnel or building a helicopter? Again, a link would suffice, if you have already answered this. Thank you.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 8 points 14 days ago

Block is confused IMO on this issue. he is not clear on what is stolen. Rothbard makes a similar mistkke in his contract chapter, when he talks about debtor's prison. if you fail to repay a debt is it the original loaned sum (say, $1000) or the sum to be repaid ($1100) that is stolen? they are 8 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

it the original loaned sum (say, $1000) or the sum to be repaid ($1100) that is stolen? they are vague abou this. If it is the $1000--how cn it be stolen a year ago? it had to be given outrihgt, with NO CONDITIONS, to the borrower SO THAT HE COULD SPEND IT. plus you cannot determine a year later, tha it "was" theft a year ago; that has to be determinable in the present. And if I don't have $1100 NOW to repay you, how am I stealing it? it dosn't exist. The future is uncertain so this is an inherent condition of all future title tranffer contracts. Block is just wrong IMO. NOt sure what recourse you would have if you maneuver yourself into an enclosed estate. I guess you'd have to count on human decency or trespass or contractual purchase of egress rights. I see no special problem here.
permalink parent [] SouthernAnCap 7 points 14 days ago

I guess a situation could be that I am a pioneer in a vast expanse of unowned land. I find a nice clearing and build my house and a farm in it, and later, more people show up and homestead around me (or someone who really hates me shows up one night and doughnut holes me).
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

if that is a real risk, move away or buy an exit route. but in reality this is rarely ap roblem. the real problem comes from the state, which is often suggested as a way to solve these non-problems.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (10 replies) [] Delectated 57 points 15 days ago

My wife is a musician and she is concerned about someone stealing her music at a concert and selling it to a movie maker. The "thief" would then be receiving royalties for music she created. Do you have any articles/research I could share with her to show her that a) royalties are a product of copyright and b) people stealing/copying her music would be a good thing for her? Any other suggested readings for her?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 31 points 14 days ago

Copying information is not stealing; your wife still has her music. What she really means is: the guy who makes a profit playing a versio nof her music, is "stealing" from her, the money he makes from customers. But that means that she has a property right in the money in the pockets of his customers. BUt she does not. This is just free market competition.
permalink parent [] RikF 89 points 14 days ago

How is this competition? Please explain how you compete with someone duplicating work you made and into which they have put no effort. The individual isn't 'playing a version' of her music, he/she is taking a recording and selling it for profit. There is no artistic contribution, and no recompense for the person who actually put the work in.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 52 points 14 days ago

they are not "taking" it. the original author still has the informaiton, no? It is just using public information. What is wrong with this? If you don't want people to konw your song, don't sing it. Keep it to yourself. If you reveal it, expect people to use it. Just like if you sell a new mousetrap, you have to tell your customers its innovative features; and if it starts selling the profit signal will attract competitors like chum does sharks; and then your profit will be eroded as you face compettition. this is the free market.
permalink parent

9 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] those_draculas 38 points 14 days ago

Thanks for the dialogue you're having, it's insightful but I have one question: what about the cost that goes into the finished product? as a professional musician, without the (meagre) stream of income from royalties, merch, and performances, the level of possible exposure for my work and the amount of time I can focus on my art would plumet. Innovation becomes harder to come by when your means and efforts are limited by the costs of living, making profits off someone elses art (and more importantly the time they put into creating it) without their consent is no different than stealing a chair from a craftsman's warehouse in my eyes. Why do you believe that the intangibility of music makes the time put into it less valuable?
permalink parent [] SouthernAnCap 30 points 14 days ago

Not Dr. Kinsella, obviously, but I might be able to answer. If a lot of people like your music, you use your popularity to make money. For instance, you could offer to be in advertisements, play concerts, etc. In other words, what about you has market value which no one else could copy? Also, if you are to release an album, you could make a press release saying "I will release this album to the public as soon as I receive XXX dollars."
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 28 points 14 days ago*

The above is otherwise known as the Park Jae Sung "psy" model of becoming filthy fucken' rich.
permalink parent [] SouthernAnCap 4 points 14 days ago

Indeed. His story is a perfect example of this.


permalink parent [] kurtu5 1 point 14 days ago

Not only his story, but history.


permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] those_draculas 8 points 14 days ago

thanks for the answer, you do pose solutions I'm not too sure they're feasible however. If a lot of people like your music, you use your popularity to make money. For instance, you could offer to be in advertisements, play concerts, etc. In other words, what about you has market value which no one else could copy? If someone can use my music without compensation, whats to stop them for forging an endorsement by my person? If my image is protected or can only be protected by public opinon, why not my work? On top of that it cost time and money to stay competitive, to stay relevant, the most I ever spent on the actual production of a project was $3K, a small sum, usually I work out of my house, spending only on tape reels and professional help when need(such as mastering). But the real cost comes in time, hundreds of hours can be poured into getting a 3 minute song to the quality that people come to expect from you and music in general. Unless you achieve an advance on an album, which is increasingly rare for all but major players given how little the psyical and digital mediums for music make a distributor and how little consistent flow kickstaters can provide(not that kickstater is in anyway a bad idea, everyone should try it if they need funding for something!) time and labor is being used without reimbursement, 10 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

funding for something!) time and labor is being used without reimbursement, art becomes even more a rich man's game, counter-intuitive to what Dr. Kinsella is talking about with innovation. people do take/pirate/steal my music, kids using soulseek and radio stations not understanding how publishing works doesn't bother me, until you get into niche material like 7"s the phsyical medium for music in inherently unprofitable for many, many reasons(piracy included!). I've only ever fought unliscensed and unsanctioned use in advertising with legal means, I've been fortunate enough nto to have anyone blatantly claim with their own names anything I do!
permalink parent [] SouthernAnCap 9 points 14 days ago

Forging an endorsement would be fraud, not an I.P. issue. For the rest of it, I understand your concerns, but I think Dr. Kinsella's position is that there is a reason that the concept of private property exists to begin with (scarcity), and that reason only applies to matter, which exists in fixed quantities.
permalink parent [] those_draculas 3 points 14 days ago

Forging an endorsement would be fraud, not an I.P. issue. In context of the original question in this chain, I'm not seeing the difference between profiting off someone's name and profiting off someone's artistic work without their permission, both are intangible concepts. I think there is some merit to the idea of fixed quantities becoming less relevant, and I'm really enjoying reading this AMA, but a huge problem for artistic and technological inovation in my eyes is that the digital and print mediums have advanced so much faster than the essential mediums(like food, shelter) that while abolishment of IP can be a (potential?) boon for a consumer it would only help entretch the already established as noteriety requires effort which requires time and labor(two concepts that are both intagible and scarce) that needs to be spent atleast partly on profitable endevours in order achieve an acceptable level of quality for the listener/consumer and a meal and bed for yourself.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 3 points 14 days ago

In context of the original question in this chain, I'm not seeing the difference between profiting off someone's name and profiting off someone's artistic work without their permission, both are intangible concepts. But one is profiting from a fraudulent claim (lie) and the other is not. Do you still not see the difference? Here: http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/credit_is_due We the people who think that copyright is corrupt want that corruption to end, not it be replaced with a different form of corruption (fraud).
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] walden42 3 points 14 days ago

And this is only scraping the surface.


permalink parent

11 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

permalink

parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] lazernerd 22 points 14 days ago

The amount of time you put into creating something is not what gives it value. Value is achieved by creating something that satisfies the subjective desires/values/wants of other individuals.
permalink parent [] yajirobi 3 points 14 days ago

yeah but the point is. if i steal it i can offer it cheaper, because my costs are lower.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] Eric578 2 points 14 days ago

if your music becomes popular, like getting used for a movie trailer, you'll be able to make much more money selling live performances or other ways of monetizing fame.
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] nskinsella [S] 50 points 14 days ago

you don't own value. value is what others think about your stuff. you have no proeprty in that. the law should not give you a property right in that. besides, if the state stopped taxing you, you would be 8 times richer immediately, an could afford to do your music.
permalink parent [] those_draculas 15 points 14 days ago

you have a point on value, but couldn't value be subverted or denied? because a person steals the hope diamond at little cost of their own, does that mean it lacks value? Could you point me to a work of yours (or other's) on "8 times richer immediately" the tax code is actually quite fair to artists, there's many expenses involved in the creation and promotion of art that are easily written off, for the actual profits it's the same as anything else, and the cost involved in every step from conception to mass distribution is most definitely not inflated that much by state action.
permalink parent [] pdwr 9 points 14 days ago

because a person steals the hope diamond at little cost of their own, does that mean it lacks value? When did he say the cost to steal something has anything to do with value? The value of the hope diamond is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. So, even if stolen, the hope diamond will still be incredibly valuable, because others will be willing to pay the thief millions of dollars for it. What he is saying is that the value is a subjective opinion of potential buyers, so you can't own value. Feelings of others simply are not ownable.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] morsX 1 point 14 days ago

There is a glaring fallacy in your argument. Stealing property does have opportunity cost, as well as risk. 12 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

opportunity cost, as well as risk.


permalink parent [] DoorsofPerceptron 3 points 14 days ago

if the state stopped taxing you, you would be 8 times richer immediately, an could afford to do your music. Ok, who here is paying 87.5% tax?
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (84 replies) [] buffalo_pete 1 point 14 days ago

(I am not /u/nskinsella.) making profits off someone elses art (and more importantly the time they put into creating it) without their consent is no different than stealing a chair from a craftsman's warehouse in my eyes. First, as has been covered, no one is "profiting off someone else's art." You still have your art (for discussion's sake, let's say it's a song). No one took it from you, or indeed has the power to do so. What they have done is create a duplicate, using their own labor and resources. The ones and zeros exist on their hard drive, and they were put their through the use of electricity that they (presumably) paid for. None of that is yours. But that's tangential to what I really wanted to say here, which regards, as you said, "the time they put into creating it." I don't want to sound like an asshole here or anything, but to a consumer of music (again, just for instance), your time has no value. Whether you spent a day or a year on a song makes no difference in terms of its value to anyone but you. It's not that "the intangibility of music makes the time put into it less valuable," it's that the time spent has no value to begin with - again, to anyone but you, who isn't buying your time, they're buying your song. I hope that was fairly clear and non-douchey.
permalink parent

load more comments (15 replies) [] bachiswach 13 points 14 days ago

Apologies, but this is an absurd notion. As a professional musician, I've invested a great deal of my own time, development, and resources into my talents and craft. I did so for two reasons: 1. Personal fulfillment, which I agree nobody can take away, and 2. it's my job, and I produce and sell it for income. I can produce it for income because nobody can do what I do the way I do it; thus, art. Artistic creation may not be like diamonds, where someone takes it out of the ground and therefore owns it, but it is a creation that can only be created by a mind that can mine it from a place in which nobody else has the same access. It is foolish to assume that just because I create something that everyone CAN steal means it is proper. If you could steal my music, I could steal your car. When you say "I worked hard for this car!" or even "I built this car with my bare hands", you'd be saying the exact same thing I did when you took my music. The value of art is not the physical representation, it is the creation. The value of your CD is not the CD itself, it is the information on it. The value of your painting isn't the canvas nor the paint, it is the emotion invoked by the artist's efforts. That information was created by someone, and that's what you're paying for.
permalink parent [] Citizen_Bongo 3 points 14 days ago

I think it's more comparable to someone making a car that's easy for anyone to produce, and then people copy it.

13 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Could the person who made the first guitar not have claimed ownership over every note? Musicians tend to only sell what they claim is their own material or credit a paid writer in some way. If someone falsely claims they wrote a song it's an act of fraud. Perhaps you could sue them for false claims at your expense? Rather than claiming ownership over that information it's self. I can't see artists saying "yeah this is a song I ripped from some guy, anyway that'll be 10 bucks"... And customers paying up.
permalink parent

load more comments (8 replies) [] gay_unicorn666 -1 points 14 days ago

Stealing is inherently different from copying. Don't act like they are the same thing.
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (22 replies) [] jevon 3 points 14 days ago

So if we took every piece that you have written, every Reddit comment you have posted, and posted it somewhere else for profit under a different name - that wouldn't bother you at all? As an artist, copyright is critical for me to invest any time in actually creating something worth listening to. I'm not going to spend three months writing a song if someone can just copy it, relabel it and sell it.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [] ancaptain 7 points 14 days ago

I agree which is why I think we should all be paying royalties for use the wheel, fire, metallurgy, book binding, the transistor, etc... we're all immoral thieves!
permalink parent [] RikF 3 points 14 days ago

Because there is no difference between being legally able to exploit a copy of a piece of work before the creator has managed to exploit it to make a reasonable living, and someone owning the rights to works forever. See 'slippery slope' argument.
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] Krackor 6 points 14 days ago

It is competition in the music distribution industry. Evidently the person making the recording is doing a better job of getting the music to people who want to hear it than the wife is. If the wife wants profits from distributing her music she should compete to distribute her music more effectively than anyone else.
permalink parent [] RikF 18 points 14 days ago

No. She would have to distribute better than everyone else. Everyone would include established companies who had been doing this for years, with experience, money and muscle. How would a starting musician possibly compete with them in this instance? This isn't leveling a playing field, it's reinforcing the dominant position of the established.
permalink parent

14 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] rcglinsk 6 points 14 days ago

Start up musicians can't compete with record companies. Eliminating copyrights would only have the effect of weakening the major competition because they wouldn't have a portfolio of copyrights. In pure theory, the major record companies would be far more interested in signing up new talent as they wouldn't be able to continue to make money selling five year old music.
permalink parent [] RikF 20 points 14 days ago

Signing up? What incentive would they have to sign anyone? Simply take the first copy of their work that they produce, duplicate it and sell it. Why pay them anything at all? If they stop producing music because they can't profit by it, well, just wait for the next schmuck to come along and copy theirs.
permalink parent [] tocano 8 points 14 days ago

Simply take the first copy of their work that they produce, duplicate it and sell it. Sell it how? If there aren't copyrights, why would anyone buy a song from a major company who's only product is other people's music? This is just my opinion, but I would imagine that without copyrights, music would become much more democratic and flat. You wouldn't have 2-3 dozen top names that are played on the radio every day, all day, over and over again. Instead, you'd be finding music directly from the musician through various iTunes type interfaces that allows you to listen to and download songs that you like ("If you like this song, perhaps you'll like some of these similar songs: ... "). You find and start to really like a particular artist, you're going to pay/donate/contribute to have them produce more songs. A guy running a server that copies and redistributes already written songs can't help you with that, you'll have to pay the artist themselves.
permalink parent [] Yossarian54 4 points 14 days ago

"Sell it how? If there aren't copyrights, why would anyone buy a song from a major company who's only product is other people's music?" Convenience. We already know that is the primary reason people pirate music/movies/tv/whatever. Abolishing copyright doesn't change this. Why would I go to 50 different artist websites when I can get the 50 songs I want from a singular source? Paying in a single easy payment? I think the current regime has already established that people don't particularly care about making sure the artist receives profits from their work, it is all about whether they can more easily obtain music from legal or illegal sources. In your particular example, a lack of copyright law would allow the company that provides the interface to pocket all the profits, as the artist has no claim to their own work enshrined in legislation.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] rcglinsk 2 points 14 days ago

How do they get said copy without buying it from the artist via a contract with terms the artist and the company agreed to?
permalink parent

15 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] RikF 5 points 14 days ago

By copying it from someone else.


permalink parent [] rcglinsk 2 points 14 days ago

How did the someone else get it?


permalink parent

continue this thread


load more comments (11 replies) load more comments (23 replies) [] libertatia 5 points 14 days ago

"that means that she has a property right in the money in the pockets of his customers" Um. No. There isn't any circumstance I can think of in which we would say that having property in a good or service that someone might buy gives us "a property right in the money in the pockets of his customers." You can reject the argument that the creation of an intellectual product creates property rights, and that an infringement of them would be theft, but it's simply not honest to assert some other argument in their place. This sort of thing is what makes me suspect the anti-IP position is not particularly well thought out.
permalink parent [] Delectated 3 points 14 days ago

great, I'll see if she has any follow up ?s later today.


permalink parent

load more comments (11 replies) [] farlige_farvande 5 points 14 days ago

Disregarding the cartoon girls, I think this explains it quite well.


permalink parent [] Wallies 20 points 15 days ago

I'll be the jerk. What about Georgism bothers you so extensively? I've only seen you point to Rothbard's refutation, which has had many responses itself.
permalink [] conn2005 11 points 14 days ago

Is this the response you are talking about? http://www.stephankinsella.com/2007/04/egads-i-hate-georgism/


permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 10 points 14 days ago

that's one
permalink parent

load more comments (6 replies) [] nskinsella [S] 38 points 14 days ago

who is going to enforce the tax? how much is it? why does society have a claim on land it never homesteaded? Why is land special--after all it's just another type of scarce resource. etc.
permalink parent [] [deleted] 23 points 14 days ago

why does society have a claim on land it never homesteaded? Stephan, this is a ridiculous thing to say. It is on par with a Georgist asking a Rothbardian, "Why does the individual have a claim on land for which he never paid rent?" You are simply assuming the validity of your own position.
permalink parent

16 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] jscoppe 3 points 14 days ago

Have to agree with you, there. I've heard him talk about homesteading elsewhere, and it seems he just assumes it's intrinsically right.
permalink parent [] Mr12345 1 point 13 days ago

Too bad his position is valid.


permalink parent

load more comments (10 replies) [] VJL110 7 points 14 days ago*

who is going to enforce the tax? DROs. how much is it? The highest anyone is willing to pay to exclude everyone else from it. (Market rate set by auction) why does society have a claim on land it never homesteaded? They don't. Nobody has a legitimate claim on land. Why does a homesteader have a right to exclude others from the beneficial formation of matter that existed before he came along? Why is land special--after all it's just another type of scarce resource. It is the only resource. Without access to land, labor is nothing. The irony here, is that I have always seen land and IP ownership as functionally similar. How is granting perpetual monopoly to the first comer in physical-space any better than granting perpetual monopoly to the first comer in idea-space?
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 27 points 14 days ago

How is granting perpetual monopoly to the first comer in physical-space any better than granting perpetual monopoly to the first comer in idea-space? For the 10.000.000000th time: Land is scarce, ideas are not.
permalink parent [] T-Rax 8 points 14 days ago

land isn' scarce, theres enough on mars and other planets ! what you mean that land isn't good ? maybe some ideas aren't good either...
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 5 points 14 days ago

land isn' scarce, theres enough on mars and other planets ! You're using the lay definition of scarce. The economic definition is more rigorous. The properties of land are such that it is: scarce: there is a finite amount of it, and you cannot make more of it rivalrous: a person using a specific mass land at a point in time prevents another person from using it in the same way Ideas are not scarce, because (in principle) you can make as many ideas as you want. Ideas are not rivalrous, because (in principle) you can use the same idea that someone else is using, in exactly the same way, at the same time, without preventing that someone else from using the idea. When making deductive or inductive reasonings, treating ideas (or essentially any intangibles) as if they belonged to the same category as physical objects

17 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

(when they do not), leads to erroneous conclusions.


permalink parent [] T-Rax 3 points 14 days ago

Land is not scarce, because (in principle) you can make as many land as you want (on the fuckin moon). As for Ideas, and lets asume we are talking about economically useful Ideas, as everything else would be nonsense: Ideas are not rivalrous, because (in principle) you can't use the same idea that someone else is using because of (at least) market saturation.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 2 points 14 days ago

Land is not scarce, because (in principle) you can make as many land as you want (on the fuckin moon). No. You can't do that. Not even in the Moon, or in Mars, or in VW Cephei. You can reconfigure existing matter and energy, but you cannot make more of it. I'm sorry but at this point you have made a claim that is demonstrably, observably, blatantly false, pertaining to the physical realm. Your latest claim is comparable in error to saying that Earth is flat, or that you can build a perpetual motion machine. It just does not get any wronger than that. As a consequence, I have zero reason to believe anything you have to say now. Your credibility level is zero. Ze-ro. Given the depth of error you are steadfastly clinging to, just so you can continue to believe your (now-obviously) wrong conclusions, I have lost all interest in what you have to say. Now, don't get me wrong, you could be right (with about as much likelihood as homeopaths' claims about their medicines being right). I just don't have time to wait until you prove to me that anyone can "make more land in the Moon". The reality is, I derive zero entertainment from discussing obviously false hypotheses with people who insist that things which are obviously wrong, are right. Bye. I hope you understand.
permalink parent [] T-Rax 5 points 14 days ago

we are talking about (a:) land as the abstract concept of matter now ? i thought it was (b:) land as a resource that can be claimed by someone. if its a: you are ridiculous and argumentation regarding ideas would then delve into information theory. if its b: there is land on the moon that can be claimed as a resource, and it has not been proven that the universe is finite, not that argumenting with infinities is practicable.
permalink parent [] VJL110 4 points 14 days ago*

Scarcity is only relevant to the extent that it necessitates a system for managing exclusion. Both Ancaps and Georgists advocate such a system for land (homesteading and LVT respectively). The problem that IP and land ownership share is that both result in one person's action excluding others from doing the same. Rather than adding opportunities to the world like capitalists do, land and idea owners monopolize pre-existing opportunities and profit purely from exclusion.
permalink parent [] renegade_division 3 points 14 days ago

18 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] renegade_division 3 points 14 days ago

The problem that IP and land ownership share is that both result in one person's action excluding others from doing the same. That IS the definition of "property". Property right simply means "right to exclude others from its usage". This is why you cannot say "everybody in the society has a common property right on land"
permalink parent [] VJL110 5 points 14 days ago

Right. But in the case of capital or labor, I am excluding you from something that didn't exist without my agency. In the case of land and ideas, I am excluding you from something that existed independent of me. The former adds to the world, the latter subtracts. Monopoly control of something you added makes sense. Monopoly control of something you took away does not.
permalink parent [] renegade_division 1 point 14 days ago

In the case of land and ideas, I am excluding you from something that existed independent of me. That's not the point, property rights don't exist because we have a psychological desire to exclue others from things, property rights exist because we have conflicting desires with things where conflicting desires cannot be implemented. This is different from the "creator doctrine" that people have property rights because they created it. Irrespective of your position on capitalist system of property rights, you MUST need a system of conflict resolution on conflicting usage of anything. That would be YOUR system of property rights. Say you hold a lottery of all a man's possessions after he dies and you assign his goods to a random person, this may not be the Capitalist system of property rights but its still a system of conflict resolution. This would be a highly inefficient system because if a person isn't allowed to give his descendants a piece of property then he has no reason to save anything by the time he dies, society's capital would massively suffer because anyone who hits 40 stops saving and consumes it all by the time he dies. Intangible things don't require property rights because they are not limited in nature therefore a there is no conflicting usage of that good. Our criticism of georgist position on land isn't that "It doesn't allow one person to own property" but that its a shitty(inefficient) system of conflict resolution(just like the hypothetical 'lottery' based system I described earlier).
permalink parent [] VJL110 1 point 14 days ago

That's not the point, property rights don't exist because we have a psychological desire to exclue others from things, property rights exist because we have conflicting desires with things where conflicting desires cannot be implemented. I'm not seeing a functional distinction here. We desire to exclude others, because we do not want them to exercise their conflicting desires for implementation. This is different... I completely agree with everything you say in the second two paragraphs. Our criticism of georgist position on land isn't that "It doesn't 19 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Our criticism of georgist position on land isn't that "It doesn't allow one person to own property" but that its a shitty(inefficient) system of conflict resolution(just like the hypothetical 'lottery' based system I described earlier). This is the point of disagreement then. I support geoism primarily from consequentialist grounds. Thus the focus on supporting rights in things that add to the world (produce) and not in things that subtract by monopolizing pre-existing things. A geoist auction system ensures that land is controlled by whoever can make the most efficient use of it. At the same time, it eliminates rent-seeking in land, which is the largest non-productive occupation outside of government (and is effectively all that government is doing anyway).
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [] jscoppe 6 points 14 days ago

Actually, it is a thing's rivalrousness that makes it needing of property rights. That is, any particular plot of land can only be used for one purpose at any given time, and assigning it to a person or group of people allows it to be managed more effectively; whereas an idea can be used an infinite number of times by everyone on Earth, so property rights in this case are virtually meaningless.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 6 points 14 days ago

Actually, it is a thing's rivalrousness that makes it needing of property rights. Agreed. I stand corrected.
permalink parent [] jscoppe 1 point 14 days ago

I'm thinking of doing a post about that. A lot of people confuse the two.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 1 point 13 days ago

You should.
permalink parent [] TheRealPariah 1 point 14 days ago*

Is that the only "need" for property rights? I can understand that other "needs" may be labeled as "desires" (i.e. more innovation, compensation for labor, etc.). Why is this appropriate? One does not need to exclude others from any land they are not physically occupying (taking up space with their body).
permalink parent

load more comments (9 replies) load more comments (6 replies) [] Frodork 2 points 14 days ago

to play devils advocate, strictly speaking, land is not scarce, but land that is both useful and easy to get to is. in that same vein, ideas are not scarce, but ideas that are both useful and easy to get to are.
permalink parent

load more comments (8 replies) load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (3 replies)

20 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [] bionsuba 34 points 15 days ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Let me present a scenario to you. I am a regular Joe. After working in a car garage for 20 years I invent a new type of tool that allows my work to go about three times faster. I try to sell it to make some money on the side, only a couple of local garages due to my lack of budget and I get some good reception. In your world I can't apply for a patent for my new idea and try to sell the rights to someone for even more money. Three weeks later, a large auto manufacturer is making a tool that is almost identical to my tool, but there is nothing I can do to stop them due to the fact that there are no patents. Now what?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 55 points 14 days ago

yes, if you try to sell a product and if it is popular, you have to expect competition. there is nothing wrong with this. you have to have high quality, rely o your first mover advantage, your band name or reputation, or keep innovating, if you want to keep making profit. Profit is unnatural, and is gradually reduced by competition. Everyone who is for patent is against free market competition. See http://archive.mises.org/17767/. They admit this. They say "Governments adopt intellectual property laws in the belief that a privileged, monopolistic domain operating on the margins of the free-market economy promotes long-term cultural and technological progress better than a regime of unbridled competition." -- What kind of libertarian or free market advocate is against unbridled competition??!! See http://mises.org/daily/4575 -- Wendy McElroy discussing Benjamin Tucker: "The natural-rights side contended that the law must presume something to be property so long as it was valuable. If an idea had value, then it was presumed to be property whether publicly expressed or not. By contrast, Tucker advanced a theory of abandonment. That is, if a man publicized an idea without the protection of a contract, then he was presumed to be abandoning his exclusive claim to that idea. 'If a man scatters money in the street, he does not thereby formally relinquish title to it but those who pick it up are thereafter considered the rightful owners. Similarly a man who reproduces his writings by thousands and spreads them everywhere voluntarily abandons his right of privacy and those who read them no more put themselves by the act under any obligation in regard to the author than those who pick up scattered money put themselves under obligations to the scatterer.' "Perhaps the essence of Tucker's approach to intellectual property was best expressed when he exclaimed, "You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself."
permalink parent [] Monkey_Economist 46 points 14 days ago

So a very small business owner with a great idea (that realistically comes once in a lifetime) has to rely on means to compete that big companies have mastered? Is that fair for that person? So realistically he can't make money out of it (he gets pushed out of the market by the big boys), why should he share his big idea? Is the withholding of the great idea a positive solution for the economy as a whole? (He has a way to improve efficiency)
permalink parent [] Matticus_Rex 20 points 14 days ago

Why can't he license the idea?


permalink parent [] Monkey_Economist 23 points 14 days ago

He certainly can. But, consider how Reddit views companies: big, evil and always ready to screw you over. Mr Small B. Owner can't pitch his idea/ show his prototype to a big company because they will blatantly copy the idea without paying him and he can't do anything about it. No court would give a flying fuck because IP doesn't 21 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

he can't do anything about it. No court would give a flying fuck because IP doesn't exist in that ideological society.
permalink parent [] Matticus_Rex 21 points 14 days ago

Contract law exists in that society. That's how ideas like this get pitched in fields with little to no IP protection today, and it works.
permalink parent [] T-Rax 3 points 14 days ago

isn't it much more efficient the way it is now ? i mean with a patent representing a contract with everyone in the market that protects the idea and at the same time pitches it to everyone...
permalink parent [] Matticus_Rex 7 points 14 days ago

That part may be slightly easier to manage in our current system, but the patent system itself is ridiculously inefficient.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] rcglinsk 29 points 14 days ago

Have the big company sign a confidentiality agreement. Then the courts will care. Incidentally, this is what happens now.
permalink parent [] tocano 3 points 14 days ago

Or have the presentation demonstrate the results without demonstrating the means.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] ribread3 9 points 14 days ago

Now prepare to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating it for the next five years.
permalink parent [] rcglinsk 17 points 14 days ago

If a company is going to breach the confidentiality agreement, they'll infringe the patent. You will have litigation costs either way, and perhaps far higher ones with patent litigation because it's a more specialized/complex area of law. Further, patents take a long time to obtain and cost a lot of money. Confidentiality agreements cost very little and happen instantly.
permalink parent [] T-Rax 1 point 14 days ago

so you contrast the confidentiality agreement" with the *patent in a case where both are supposed to fullfil the same function and could in theory also be used currently. however, its easier to wiggle your way out of a confidentiality agreement than to get out of a patent, which explains why currently one costs more than the other.
permalink parent [] rcglinsk 3 points 14 days ago

I think you have the facts backwards. Individual inventors without access to significant funds are far, far more likely to employ a confidentiality agreement than to patent the invention before

22 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

confidentiality agreement than to patent the invention before shopping it to larger companies.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] virus5877 9 points 14 days ago

if such a system was implemented, most big companies wouldn't last long at all. They are propped up by IP, patents, insider trading, etc. best line of this whole thread: Profit is unnatural, and is gradually reduced by competition. This really helps illustrate the fucked up system so many people are trying to overturn. "big" companies shouldn't exist in a true free-market, competition forces them to keep iterating or die fast :)
permalink parent [] OrlandoMagik 4 points 14 days ago

in this IP-less supposedly free market ONLY big companies would exist, as they would run small competitors into the ground with their power through economies of scale, just like the way that wal mart and other big box stores are causing mom and pop places to shut down because they cannot compete.
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] ansabhailte 14 points 14 days ago

Or just sell the idea and prototype to the big company, and sign a contract guaranteeing royalties.
permalink parent [] rcglinsk 28 points 14 days ago*

Which is exactly what happens under the current system.


permalink parent [] throwaway-o 17 points 14 days ago

Except 99% of patents don't actually get sold or registered that way. Patents are registered as a turf fence to ruin any prospective competition.
permalink parent [] rcglinsk 9 points 14 days ago

Absolutely. I was more trying to say that in today's world small time inventors typically cut a deal with an established player to develop a new product. That would probably be the case regardless of the patent laws. The only difference might be that there would be more medium sized players instead of a few big ones because the big players only exist because of their monopoly rights. This would benefit inventors because it would improve their negotiating stance vis a vis the established players.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 8 points 14 days ago

because the big players only exist because of their monopoly rights bows to your truth-bearing statement. Correct.
permalink parent

23 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

load more comments (5 replies) [] shosuroyokaze 4 points 14 days ago

What's to stop the company from stealing the idea?


permalink parent [] Matticus_Rex 9 points 14 days ago

Contract law. Why would you show the company your idea and give them the option to make a profit off of it without protecting yourself via contract? This is how it's done already in fields with little copyright protection.
permalink parent [] shosuroyokaze 3 points 14 days ago

Ya, indie developers always have tons of money to spend to sue companies that breach contracts...
permalink parent [] Matticus_Rex 5 points 14 days ago

If they have a good case on that type of contract enforcement, then getting a lawyer isn't going to be an issue. Also, in the system of law Kinsella advocates, litigation would be much cheaper.
permalink parent

load more comments (14 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (19 replies) load more comments (8 replies) load more comments (24 replies) [] sqrt7744 18 points 14 days ago

In a free market, there are no "big boys." Why? The "big boys" are only big due to their own legal protection. Anyone could simply copy their products, etc, ad infinitum. The market is truly the only way to level the playing field. As for innovation, there are historical examples of incredible progress w/o patent protection, so that is not a viable argument.
permalink parent [] icanthascheezburger 3 points 14 days ago

Their products could be copied indeed, but no other company would have the economies of scale to produce goods as cheaply as the big guys. They may not innovate, but dang, look at Walmart's prices. I don't see cheap goods going out of style anytime soon.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] Knorssman 5 points 14 days ago

why do you assume that small businesses cannot compete with big businesses in an unbridled free market? Is the withholding of the great idea a positive solution for the economy as a whole? (He has a way to improve efficiency) he gains nothing then which is the next to worst thing he could do for himself economically speaking
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply)

24 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (9 replies) [] WilltheDILF 12 points 14 days ago

So if there are no patents, wouldn't that make it difficult for the lower class inventors to obtain a decent profit compared to their much wealthier competitors? The wealthier competitor will always have the upper hand because they can simply copy somebody's innovation, sell it as their own, possibly improve upon it since they have the necessary funds, and due to their popularity will completely overshadow the struggling lower class inventor's profits? Yes, this would be free market competition, but is this kind of competition really a good thing?
permalink parent [] delirium2k 14 points 14 days ago

Free market competition is good for consumers. It isn't supposed to be good for producers
permalink parent [] IPThereforeIAm 3 points 14 days ago

I disagree. Free market competition is good for consumers for ideas that have been already invented. When there is no patent protection, companies stop innovating because they can't recover their research costs. They sit around and wait to copy, just like everyone else. This is bad for consumers.
permalink parent [] delirium2k 6 points 14 days ago

They sit around and wait to copy Is there any reason I should believe you when you say that's what happens? Has there been a sector of the economy that stagnated because intellectual property was not thoroughly protected, and if so, when did this occur and in what sector?
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] FordSVT1 2 points 14 days ago

Producers are usually consumers.


permalink parent [] SpiritofJames 4 points 14 days ago

Producers are consumers of a vast array of goods and services, while they normally produce only a few. Working together, individuals in a free market receive more value as consumers than they create as producers, ie everyone benefits.
permalink parent [] northben 3 points 14 days ago

on the other hand, what poor person has the money to file for a patent? The large companies today seem to love the patent wars going on in the technology sector. They are using it as a weapon against smaller firms. Ergo, patents help the rich get richer.
permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies) [] ichormusic 16 points 14 days ago

But he could still approach a major company or factory and say that he has a great idea that could make them a lot of money. I'll share it with you if you sign a nondisclosure agreement, that states you won't manufacture it unless you pay me an agreed upon sum? Or I'll sell you the idea for an agreed upon sum... Otherwise, the contract states that you can't have it, nor can you tell anyone about it. Right? 25 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Right?
permalink parent [] reed311 9 points 14 days ago

But then big company number 2 will just reverse engineer it and sell it at a lower price with no consequence.
permalink parent [] FourthReichsFuhrer 6 points 14 days ago

There are consequences to them selling it at a lower price. Consumers whose lives are improved by the tool have access to it at lower cost, without any loss to the increased productivity it creates. As a whole, society is richer as a result. Surely you value progress over people being possessive over their ideas.
permalink parent [] Cats_and_hedgehogs 4 points 14 days ago

This concept seems great for inventions but when it comes to medicine its much worse. Company A spends several billion dollars making drug 1. They finally finish it and put it out on the market for $30 a pill to make their cost back. Company B does no research and simply waits for A to make the drug. They then take it and make the same medicine selling it for $2 a pill. A looks like the bad guys, how dare they make such huge profits, when in reality they lost money and now no one will buy their medicine because B short cut them drastically.
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] JamesCarlin 3 points 14 days ago

"Surely you value progress over people being possessive over their ideas." False dichotomy. Lots of progress is incentivized by the ownership of intangibles.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [] parley 7 points 14 days ago

why do your even bother? It's clear that these guys have never been in position of needing any kind of IP protection. Their world is filled with pretty utopic, brochure quality, powerpoint slides.
permalink parent [] dkey1983 1 point 14 days ago

I wonder if you know what utopic means.


permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies) [] pdwr 3 points 14 days ago

Oh, there would be a consequence: society would get the great tool for a lower cost and would benefit accordingly.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [] yajirobi 2 points 14 days ago

this thought process is so wrong, i dont even know where to start.. there is nothing wrong with this. 26 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

there is nothing wrong with this. to take 20years away from someone? i dont know man. slavery isnt wrong either? or not paying your workers? and this is exactly the same. a single inventor cannot compete with a company (statistically) you have to have high quality, nope. doesnt work. i hugh company will always be able to do it equally good or better/ cheaper first mover advantage you might be able to conquer a small marketshare until a hugh company notices whats going on. and then you are gone. your band name or reputation im sure your garage company brand is able to compete with a worldwide operating company... or keep innovating 1 engineer vs 100 engineers.. that guy needs to be frickn good. so doesnt work either. besides that. the company will just keep stealing the new ideas. so basically the inventor is working for the company. hes just not getting paid for it. actually, he even pays for it. in the end the company with the cheapest production wins. because thats all that matters at that point. the current system is bad, no question there. But removing rights is a very bad idea. A few companies basically dont need patents because there are physical ways to protect their data. f2p games/ server based stuff. electronics are harder to copy than mechanical products.
permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies) [] danarchist 8 points 14 days ago*

Sounds like you wasted 2/3 of 20 years. If you could have gotten investment, built 10,000 units (edit - this is scalable for anyone based on market demand. If you could potentially sell a million then you can convince an investor/investors) and sold them before anyone brought a similar product to market then you'd have made a good bit. If they sell like hotcakes and your branding is good enough you'll continue to do well when the knock-offs arrive. The alternative is asking goons with guns to force GM and everyone else to shut down manufacture of the tool, a tool that's evidently simple enough to reverse engineer quickly.
permalink parent [] Gogogodzirra 16 points 14 days ago

The problem is, if he was able to build 10,000 at $2 each, his cost is $20K. It doesn't take much for a company with a lot more resources to simply buy in volume and get them @ $1 each. Then undercut his price with same quality. In essence, by removing patents, you have destroyed anyone except corporations making money long term if money is to be made.
permalink parent [] iamtooold 13 points 14 days ago

Further, even corporations would face stiff competition from competitors in lower cost areas (e.g., China, Vietnam, India, Bangladesh) which would erode incentives for R&D. If a pharma. company needs to recoup a couple hundred million per successful drug (the recoup including failed attempts at other drugs, R&D for present drug, manufacturing costs, etc.), and someone can knock off their drug for 1/50th of their asking price, they have little incentive to invest in creating new drugs and may not have the capital to do so.
permalink parent [] strapt313 4 points 14 days ago

Corporations are not a product of the free market. They are a product of the state.
permalink parent

27 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [] danarchist 5 points 14 days ago

Fedex competed with the unlimited pockets of USPS. Southwest is the only airline left that's left that's still profitable. true, they sell services, but by following your logic the big players should have out-competed them by offering rates at a loss for a small time to put the little guys out of business. Also, do we really need to send goons in to enforce profit if the big guys can offer a better product cheaper?
permalink parent [] Gogogodzirra 4 points 14 days ago

You're talking about services. I'm talking about products. And yes, we need someone to help protect the little guy from the big guy. I think some of the patent system is severely broken, but there is an absolute need for it.
permalink parent [] danarchist 5 points 14 days ago*

Where is the need? Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for keeping your trade secrets? And if it's impossible to keep a secret, and someone can do it more efficiently than you, why should we help you bring down everyone's standard of living? If the same product comes to market cheaper then (nearly) everyone wins. If the big guys start abusing us by raising prices well, then your inventor still has a leg to stand on. I understand the "we should all help the little guy" sentiment, but it's very naive. EDIT: Why should we help the little guy? What's in it for us? I am a little guy, and I'll happily take a $1 part over a $2 part. If the little guy was savvy he would have partnered with investors and gotten a big enough loan to cover the cost of producing in scale, so that he couldn't be undercut by a bigger outfit.
permalink parent [] Gogogodzirra 2 points 14 days ago

I don't believe the taxpayers should. I believe once you have a patent, you have to pay X dollars in a downward sliding scale every year for X years to control what you have created. (Of if you license it, the patent organization might get X% of that for maintenance, etc.). Believing that any individual has a chance against a corporation (or copycats) is naive. See how it has worked out in china? Things are knocked off immediately. It creates a type of shadow economy that in the long term stifles innovation. A system that isn't ab-usable and is self-sustaining is what we need to get to eventually. Btw, whoever downvoted danarchist's posts, stop. It's a good conversation, don't ruin it just because you disagree plz.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (12 replies) load more comments (6 replies) [] very_broke_dude 10 points 15 days ago

How will copyright reform trickle down to aid regular folks who can't afford much of anything these 28 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

How will copyright reform trickle down to aid regular folks who can't afford much of anything these days? Do you see any kind of wealth distribution changes and if so, what?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 11 points 14 days ago

movies, music, will be more plentiful, more diverse, and much cheaper.
permalink parent [] alexanderwales 24 points 14 days ago

I'm not sure how you can expect to have anyone take you seriously when you say things like that and don't back them up. In a world without copyright, entire industries which are being propped up by a state-granted monopoly will fail. People will basically just be working for donations or the love of creation. What chain of thought leads you to believe that you'd get a better variety when we already have tons of content being created for free that's (mostly) just not that good? Eliminating copyright won't affect the stuff that's already gratis, but it will negatively affect the stuff that isn't. Do you have some way to back up the claim that movies and music will be more pentiful, diverse, and cheaper? (I'd agree with cheaper if by that you mean "free".)
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] reed311 11 points 14 days ago

Yeah right. If WB spends 100 million making batman and Sony just copies it on day one then there would never be another batman movie. Sony could sell at 100 percent profit because they invested 0 dollars.
permalink parent [] Justinw303 1 point 14 days ago

If you were going to buy the movie, which studio would you buy it from? The one who made it, or the one who copied it? If you answered "the one who made it," you just saved Batman!
permalink parent [] alexanderwales 3 points 14 days ago*

Why in the world would you buy it at all? Edit: Also, the answer to your question is almost certainly "whoever was selling it for cheaper" for the vast majority of the population, assuming that you wouldn't just get it for free off the internet.
permalink parent [] Justinw303 2 points 14 days ago

Why in the world would you buy it at all? Great question, and the answer doesn't depend on IP laws. Either you value something, and will pay money for it, or you don't, and then it doesn't matter what the laws are. You'll just pirate it anyway.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (7 replies) [] probablyreasonable 9 points 14 days ago

What is the motivation to invest 100M in production if the end product will be treated as a free good?
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] DaphneDK 4 points 14 days ago

Nonsense. There would be a lot less movies made. And those still made would involve 29 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Nonsense. There would be a lot less movies made. And those still made would involve drastically lower budgets and often rely on some kind of state financing. The same would be the case for computer games and other kinds of software, and other big budget products.
permalink parent [] Cynicister 2 points 14 days ago

There is 8 years worth of footage being uploaded only on youtube, per hour. Some of it is good. But all relative anyway.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [] ChrisWillson 15 points 15 days ago

Do you believe in private contracts between companies and individuals stating that they won't copy each others work as some sort of voluntary substitute for the patent system.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 45 points 14 days ago

yes, but I think they are largely impracticable--hard to enforce, pointless, and can't affect third parties. IP needs to ensnare third parties. Consider as a customer: some publisher offers a text book on amazon for $30. to buy it you hvae to sign an agreement saying you will pay the publihser $10M if he can prove you copied the book or showed it to a friend or used the ideas in it. Who would sign this? not many people. Most peopld would move on to the next seller.
permalink parent [] ChrisWillson 8 points 14 days ago

Agreed, thanks for answering.


permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] MaunaLoona 6 points 15 days ago

Intellectual property rights is a very broad topic. For example, even without the state a shopkeeper who brands his goods with a trademark will try to defend his trademark from use by others by letting others know of the misuse, ostracism, and possibly through courts (or even through violence!). That's a form of intellectual property. I believe a free society will have this type of intellectual property -- even in the lawless markets of Africa we see this form of intellectual property defended. In a stateless society I see the free market developing some kind of an intellectual property system based on the values of the people in that society. Would you be against such a system of intellectual property rights even though it doesn't involve coercion or the state, or do you think it's impossible for it to happen in a free market?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 16 points 14 days ago

I am totally against patent, copyright, and also tradmeark and trade secret. Trademark law should be replaced with fraud law only. Trade secret should just be a private contract. Easy.
permalink parent [] kurtu5 7 points 14 days ago

Trade secret should just be a private contract. Easy. SpaceX, no patents. Nuff said really on that. Elon has it figured out.
permalink parent

load more comments (23 replies)

30 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


load more comments (23 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] vretavonni 8 points 15 days ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

How hotly are patent legislations and infringements pursued by big companies? How much money is pumped into these things by companies?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 22 points 14 days ago

My guess is $200 billion a year or even more is wasted as a dead cost in the US economy alone, b/c of patents. http://blog.mises.org/14065/costs-of-the-patent-system-revisited/. honestly I think it's impossible to figure out exactly, and I would not be surprised if it is a trillion a year.
permalink parent [] THEskinOFaROBOT 8 points 14 days ago

Hey Stephen, I bought your book Against Intellectual Property even though it is fairly brief and available for free online, and I'm glad I did.
permalink [] Kinny195 22 points 14 days ago

I am Ben Kinsella, casual cinema employee. Nice to meet you, fellow Kinsella.
permalink [] bobbyreno 5 points 14 days ago

Can you introduce me to Ray Kinsella?


permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] KaseyB 43 points 15 days ago

I' m entirely in favor of reworking the whole copyright/patent system, with much more reasonable time limits for the protections, but abolish entirely? Why would people make anything? Why would a pharma company spend hundreds of millions of dollars produce some medication only to have some other company take the formula and just produce the same medication without the development costs?
permalink [] jscoppe 13 points 15 days ago

Why would people make anything? Why would a pharma company spend hundreds of millions of dollars produce some medication only to have some other company take the formula and just produce the same medication without the development costs? I hope he answers your question. He explores this in his books/essays, IIRC.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 43 points 14 days ago

you make things to make a profit selling a product or service, obviously. The idea that this is impossible absent state grants of monopoly privilege is totally unfounded, an wrong. Of course there has been innovation and artistic creation throughout human history, even before modern IP law. So the olnly real argument is that there would be innovation without IP, but not enough. This implies that you know that IP actually stimulates new innovation and that the value of it is greater than the cost of the system (neither is true: http://c4sif.org/2012/10/the-overwhelming-empirical-case-against-patent-and-copyright/). And there is no stopping point to this; the state could tax us and grant trillions of awards to innovators to stimulate even more innovation.
permalink parent [] RikF 5 points 14 days ago

So you'd see a return to a world of commissioned works?


permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 32 points 14 days ago

I'd like to abolish patent and copyright and let hte market work. I can't predict or 31 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

I'd like to abolish patent and copyright and let hte market work. I can't predict or guarantee the consequences of liberty.
permalink parent [] probablyreasonable 9 points 14 days ago

Part of suggesting a change to the legal system IS convincing people that your idea will result in a better world. When an advocate of a major change in the status quo says "I can't predict ... the consequences" what happens if we do what I'm suggesting, I wonder why we should consider this system?
permalink parent [] alexanderwales 23 points 14 days ago

He's suggesting that we consider it because it would be more just, even though it might result in worse outcomes.
permalink parent [] probablyreasonable 8 points 14 days ago

Saying it would be 'more just' without predicting or guaranteeing that it would be is useless. When we want to change the world and convince other people that we're right, we are going to have to answer the questions "How will this benefit me?" and "What are the potential side effects?" to convince any reasonable person that we are correct.
permalink parent [] Matticus_Rex 3 points 14 days ago

Pretend we're talking about ending slavery or giving women the right to vote. How would you answer those questions for those cases?
permalink parent [] probablyreasonable 4 points 14 days ago

Ending slavery benefits me because increasing the paid working class increases money flow and general economic participation. Increasing the voting public insures for me that my mother, my sister my wife and my daughters will have a say in how they are governed. Potential side effects? Immediate uptick in unemployment and an immediate political shift. Worth it? That is for you to decide. But for the benefits to me, it absolutely is. That is why I'm asking OP to answer the same. It is not unreasonable.
permalink parent

load more comments (6 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (16 replies) [] VJL110 4 points 14 days ago

Well... Kinsella claims in the above post that he thinks IP has not stimulated innovation and in fact places harm on the system. He provides support for that claim in the link. You can choose to accept that evidence or not, but if you do believe the evidence presented, it seems more than sufficient reason to abolish patent/copyright even if you cannot predict exactly what form the market will take in response.

32 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... take in response.
permalink parent

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] probablyreasonable 2 points 14 days ago

I have read what Kinsella has provided. To take isolated examples or thought experiments and to extrapolate for an entire system is misguided, misleading, and not relevant. The easiest counter example is high-cost innovations. Not only drug manufacturers, but also research that requires expensive equipment to continue. Allow patent monopolies provides financial backing to allow us to develop products that would be impossible for garage inventors. A second counter example is research universities - without the licensing/sale of patents from their research, most if not all (those without huge endowments) would have to raise tuition astronomically or reduce research budgets.
permalink parent [] mihoda 1 point 14 days ago

Part of suggesting a change to the legal system IS convincing people that your idea will result in a better world. I cannot upvote this enough.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (6 replies) load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [] Fissure226 10 points 15 days ago

There is so much more than just development that goes into the production of medical drugs. If a company wants to sell drug x on the market, it also wants to ensure that it is selling a chemically pure product. The ongoing testing and quality assurance costs far more (over time) than the original development (a one time thing). My point is that even if another company sold a drug that was discovered by another, there will still be a comparable of over-head if the second company wants to stay reputable.
permalink parent [] ThatRedEyeAlien 23 points 15 days ago*

Note that one does not magically acquire the formula to a drug by having it, they must reverse engineer it (which costs money, and takes time). Before that has been done, this firm which invented the drug has already made itself a name in that market, and thus whenever someone has been able to reverse engineer the drug, people will associate the drug with the company that originally made it and buy it from them. See for instance Burana (various brand names over the world, Motrin in the US). You can get cheaper brandless Ibuprofen than buying Burana, yet people buy Burana, because that is the name they know.
permalink parent [] jscoppe 26 points 15 days ago

Another example: people paying 3x as much or more for Benadryl when they could just get some generic dyphenhydramine.
permalink parent [] pocketknifeMT 12 points 14 days ago

or a more simple, less R&D example: 33 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... or a more simple, less R&D example: Kleenex vs facial tissues.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Or WD-40, which literally doesn't have a patent on it.


permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] KaseyB 4 points 15 days ago

Note that one does not magically acquire the formula to a drug by having it, they must reverse engineer it (which costs money, and takes time). In order for a drug to be marketed, doesn't it ahve to go through some rather rigorous testing? And doesn't that provide many many opportunities for the formula to be released? I don't even know if the formulas are kept secret... Even if they do have to reverse engineer them, I'm sure it's much, much less expensive. I've NEVER heard of Burana.
permalink parent [] KissYourButtGoodbye 14 points 14 days ago

I've NEVER heard of Burana. Where do you live? Because I don't think ibuprofen is sold under that name in the US, or Southern/Western Europe. But, at least in the US, people will buy Motrin when they could get generic ibuprofen instead for cheaper. The fact that there are drugs on the shelves that say "compare active ingredient to insert brand name drug here" and the brand name drug, which is more expensive, is still sold demonstrates the point that the name - being first to market - matters.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] Matticus_Rex 10 points 14 days ago

Even if they do have to reverse engineer them, I'm sure it's much, much less expensive. There's an average 15-20% savings on research costs. The reason it's not more is because these drugs are created in extremely small niches of pharmaceutical science. For some of these drugs, there may only be half a dozen people in the world who have the required knowledge of the subfield to replicate the drug. The main barrier in this area is the FDA, which has insane testing requirements for things that have already been tested.
permalink parent [] pagodapagoda 2 points 14 days ago

You are utterly ignorant as to how pharmaceutical innovation works. Literally any college freshman with access to an NMR machine can tell you the exact formula of ibuprofen, or Valium, or Viagra, without having to spend 80-85% of hundreds of millions to find it. You're too fucking ignorant to be talking about this.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (8 replies) [] nskinsella [S] 18 points 14 days ago

the purpose of law is not to make sure people make enough pre-ordained things. it is justice, to protect property rights. IP invades property rights. it's very simple. Your asking a question "why would people make things" is not an argument. A question is not an argument.
permalink parent

34 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


permalink parent

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] KaseyB 44 points 14 days ago

This seems like a very odd answer to my question. I don't think you've actually answered it.
permalink parent [] unspecifiedwittiness 11 points 14 days ago

I cannot answer for him, of course, but it is observable that the free market is capable of placing a large premium on innovation, both when it comes to monetary reward and social recognition, as exemplified by the Orteig Prize, along with Lindbergh's later fame in the United States and France. My interpretation of the first half of Dr. Kinsella's response is that justice and prosperity are distinct phenomena, and one should be careful not to entangle them. In my humble opinion, he gives a better explanation of the latter half of his response in this video, following the question at 26:39, in which he does not come across quite as flippantly.
permalink parent

load more comments (8 replies) [] ansabhailte 11 points 14 days ago

People make things to meet necessity. "Necessity is the mother of all invention."
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] anxiousalpaca 1 point 14 days ago

there's lots of talks by Stephan Kinsella on Youtube where things are explained very detailed.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] nskinsella [S] 10 points 14 days ago

but you are asking your question as if makign a rhetorical poitn: "how would people be incentivized to do X?' implies that we all agree that the state ought to make laws to make sure we have x and that if my answer is insufficient, then my arguemnt against the law fails. So it is question-begging; I refuse to be trapped. I will not permit people to engage in equivocation.
permalink parent [] esecarlosotondo 29 points 14 days ago

Im sorry OP, but is a valid question, and probably the most important question in this thread.
permalink parent [] benk4 55 points 14 days ago

He kinda did answer the question. What he's saying is that it doesn't matter. It's not the job of the state to encourage innovation, only to protect rights.
permalink parent

load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (4 replies) [] probablyreasonable 7 points 14 days ago

There are very clear incentives that the patent system provides, i.e. allowing researchers to recoup costs. You have not answered, at all or throughout this AMA how your system is going to provide for any of these: Individual researchers who want continue research by licensing/selling patents in lieu of selling the invention. Large investment research and development that can be easily duplicated and sold on large scales with existing manufacturing. 35 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

on large scales with existing manufacturing. How Research Universities will continue to exist. ... To name a few.
permalink parent [] buffalo_pete 11 points 14 days ago

There are very clear incentives that the patent system provides Obviously, yes. OP is asserting that those are not legitimate purposes of law. NINJA EDIT: By which I mean "The law should not mandate particular outcomes for particular parties, beyond assuring that their freedoms will be respected."
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (23 replies) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (9 replies) [] relaytheurgency 2 points 14 days ago

AMA means ask me anything, not argue me anything.


permalink parent [] probablyreasonable 2 points 14 days ago

This is entirely conclusory and doesn't address OP's question at all. "IP invades property" presupposes your own conclusion.
permalink parent

load more comments (53 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (35 replies) [] Dixzon 22 points 14 days ago

I am a research scientist, planning on filing a patent application for a new type of plastic solar cell. I don't know yet for sure if it will work, but if it does work the way I think it does, it could be an enormous boon to humanity. However, if someone with more funding than me can simply steal my idea, where is my motivation to invent this thing? I suppose there is altruism and doing it for the good of mankind and all that. But altruism won't put food in my belly. What do you think of people in my position?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 27 points 14 days ago

No one can steal your idea. They can learn from you. But you still have your idea. So be precise. What you mean is: htey are stealing the money you could extort from people if you had the right to sue for patent infringement; you are claiming a property right in the money of third parties that you can force to buy from you if you can outlaw competition. But you don't have a natural claim to or property right in the money in these potential customers' pockets.
permalink parent [] Dixzon 21 points 14 days ago*

I also have no reason to share my knowledge concerning useful things I create. to mankind that unless I can patent it. Don't you think abolishing patents would stifle and slow scientific progress? Seems like a lot to sacrifice for some ideals about property rights. I don't want to sue anybody, but I do want to be able to own the knowledge I create, so that I can profit from it in an honest legitimate way, i.e. producing and selling the product. I can't ever do that successfully though, if Dow chemical can simply read my recipe and do it themselves, outproduce and undercut me.

36 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

So I guess I'd be forced to use a trade secret then. I have to keep my invention and the recipes to make it a secret. Now nobody but me can ever have or benefit from the knowledge. How is that a win for anyone? Sorry, lots of questions I know, but I am just trying to understand why you think this way about intellectual property.
permalink parent [] jscoppe 27 points 14 days ago

I do want to be able to own the knowledge I create, so that I can profit from it in an honest legitimate way If you wanted to make money in a legitimate way, you wouldn't rely on an artificial government granted monopoly. Relying on government favors is no different from corporatism or cronyism. Just having the government say it's okay doesn't make it legitimate.
permalink parent [] Dixzon 3 points 14 days ago

Well then my only recourse is to keep the structure and recipe of my invention a secret, and it is likely that nobody will figure out how to reproduce it. Now nobody can benefit but me, and whoever inherits my hypothetical company. Or the knowledge dies with me, which is even worse. I hear what you are saying, but I feel there is a gap between your well intentioned ideals and the negative consequences of the things you are saying. Most science these days is funded by a government and therefore, science relies on government favors. Corporations don't like to get involved because there is no way to tell beforehand what scientific pursuits will end up being profitable. If it wasn't for government favors, the modern system of scientific research all over the world would collapse, and scientific progress would come to a screeching halt. The consequences of that would be far more costly than the 1% of the budget my country (the U.S.) spends on funding scientific research. These ideals ignore the fact that taxpayers almost always see huge returns on investment in science. They get something for those tax dollars.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 12 points 14 days ago

Well then my only recourse is to keep the structure and recipe of my invention a secret, That's not true. You can also contract with the people who will use your invention so that it does not escape their control. Don't believe me? Tell me: do you know the recipe for Coca-Cola? No? Then what I suggested can work, because that's exactly how the recipe for Coca-Cola is protected against would-be competitors. If you don't believe me, feel free to start Moca-Cola Bottling Company.
permalink parent [] jscoppe 12 points 14 days ago

Well then my only recourse is to keep the structure and recipe of my invention a secret, and it is likely that nobody will figure out how to reproduce it. Yes, you can take your ball and go home. We can't stop you. There are other benefits we are gaining in exchange such that the loss of your invention is probably being more than compensated for. Most science these days is funded by a government 37 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Most science these days is funded by a government Source on that? You may be right, but I don't want to accept it just because it is commonly repeated. Even if it is, it doesn't need to be. Most education is funded by a government, too, but it's not like we can't figure out how to sit kids down in a classroom in front of a teacher on our own. If it wasn't for government favors, the modern system of scientific research all over the world would collapse Because it's based on a faulty foundation. I'd rather have a system of scientific research that better reflects the will of people. Not only are there solutions like kickstarter and philanthropic donors, but a consumer will indirectly pay for scientific research that goes into a product or service it creates that they want. These ideals ignore the fact that taxpayers almost always see huge returns on investment in science. If they garner a huge return on investment, then people will want to invest in them voluntarily, and you won't need to tax people for it.
permalink parent [] Dixzon 9 points 14 days ago

If they garner a huge return on investment, then people will want to invest in them voluntarily, and you won't need to tax people for it. Science as a whole garners a huge return on investments, but specific projects could be completely profound with regards to science, yet not be profitable at all. For example, there was no real way to directly profit from the discovery of the Schrodinger equation, but many profitable discoveries have been made as a result of the formulation of that equation. Source on that? Source Also, as an anecdote I am only 27 but I have never worked in a research lab that was not funded entirely or at least in part by the government.
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) [] PresidentCleveland 2 points 14 days ago

I respect where you are coming from, but I think you're leaping and bounding a little too much. I have to find a short hand way of saying this, because I say it a lot, but his argument is, this would be best, and your's more or less is, how do I deal with this situation today? For example, people arguments against libertarian/anarchist society, is usually that it can't work because how many poor and/or evil people we have on other right now. Or, something like, I should own the land I work, vs the argument of, no you don't own it because the king will kill you. So something similar to, you can't be a scientist, because dow will rip off your ideas. Truth is independent of the tyranny of our current world. The process should, and will, be: 1) copyright is a form of force and should be repealed, 2) how do we share information without others using it to profit themselves. I have many thoughts on the second one, but I think it will be a combination of encrypted communications (which i'm about to ask this Kinsella dude about) and full public disclosure that you were the first to make a new idea. You should be free to fully slander a company if you find out its stealing your ideas and selling them.
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) [] Annihilia 11 points 14 days ago*

38 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

My girlfriend is a materials researcher who is against patents / IP. We've come to the conclusion that trade secrets + first mover advantage are great ways to make bank while people are busy figuring out how to reverse engineer your product. EDIT: The open source movement basically invalidates the argument regarding the absence of patents leading to the lack of motivation to develop new things. Also, if nobody is developing anything, the first person to develop something new will likely make a ton of money.
permalink parent [] mangybum 11 points 14 days ago

I also have no reason to be a scientist or to create anything useful to mankind that is new unless I can patent it. ...do I even need to identify what is wrong with that statement?
permalink parent [] Dixzon 0 points 14 days ago

Yeah I should rephrase it. I have no motivation to share my knowledge in regard to anything useful I create unless I can patent it.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 7 points 14 days ago

That's okay. The world does not need your creativity. Plenty people (like me, bona fide open source developer) exist who don't feel like getting a monopoly is the only way that our intellectual efforts can ever be rewarded. So take your ball and go home. There's plenty balls for us to play with.
permalink parent [] mangybum 2 points 14 days ago

Even after your rephrasing it is still unbelievably egotistical.


permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] anxiousalpaca 8 points 14 days ago

what prevents you from profiting without a patent? you can keep your invention a secret and you have a time advantage over competitors (they learn about the product when it reaches the market).
permalink parent

load more comments (17 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (7 replies) [] IKilled007 9 points 14 days ago

In your libertopian society, what protections do you have against a competitor or malicious person destroying your brand by passing his goods and services off as yours, using your logos and trademarks and uniforms and such, and then deliberating sabotaging unsuspecting consumers to ruin your business? Obviously there are remedies after the fact, but what good is that once your reputation and finances are ruined?
permalink load more comments (20 replies) [] michaelmclees 36 points 14 days ago

I just wanted to tell you that a few years ago, we debated online the merits of patents. I read your book and changed my mind to your point of view. Just wanted to say thank you.
permalink load more comments (2 replies)

39 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] dystopianutopia 7 points 15 days ago*

Stephan, two part question, your answer to the first affects the second, if someone buys computer software and 'accepts' the EULA that states they must not copy or distribute the software, have they then not entered into an agreement that puts them under the same obligations as IP laws? Thus, how would the development of computer software be possible in the absence of intellectual property? If your answer to the first part of the question is 'yes', this still would not protect the developers, as while the person who initially bought the software had broken the terms of the contract they entered, if that person were to sell it on to a third party for distribution (and thus could be sued), that third party would not have signed any contract with the developer and would be under no obligation not to share the software in the lack of IP laws. If this were to happen, then obviously anyone could legally sell on pirated computer software at a fraction of the price the official developers would be charging (or give it away for free) without paying any royalties to the developers themselves without fear of any legal repercussions. In such an environment, would anyone really want to invest millions of dollars in developing software that we all need?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 29 points 14 days ago

Contracts can never recreate IP b/c IP is "in rem"--good against the world--and contracts only affect the parties, not third parties, unlike real or in rem rights. Plus, such contracts are unlikely to be widely adopted for a variety of reasons: if hte penalties are small, they will not deter copying; if they are large, people will refuse to sign them, or only a marginalized ghetto subset of people will sign them. And as for fine print and EULA's -- see http://archive.mises.org /9923/the-libertarian-view-on-fine-print-shrinkwrap-clickwrap/ as for the second: rememembeR: a question is not an argument. even if I can't tell you how X would develop in a freer world is not an argument against freeing things up. But the answer here is obvious: look at the free software movement. It thrives without relying on copyright. people invst money in develping products to make a profit. easy. Are you saying there would be some profit, but not enough? what is enough?
permalink parent

load more comments (18 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] beaumct 5 points 14 days ago

IP was a very difficult topic for me in my intellectual development and your work smoothed out the landscape beautifully. Thank you. I will be returning to Texas soon, and to Houston specifically, from DC. Are you aware of Houston based liberty organizations, particularly those that are not focused on the political process? My focus has been promoting stateless education, but I am desperate for any like-minded groups.
permalink [] conn2005 3 points 14 days ago

Every other Thursday is Liberty On the Rocks. Look it up on facebook. Kinsella spoke two weeks ago. He's bringing Walter Block this Thursday. =)
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

I just discovered http://www.facebook.com/LibertyOnTheRocksHouston


permalink parent [] Nachopringles 5 points 14 days ago

How does it feel being an anarchist libertarian in a world where most people think you are crazy? I attend Queen's University in Canada and there are some anarcho-capitalist types who have turned me into a much more right leaning Friedmanite, but the thing I don't buy from the anarchocapitalist argument is A) No way to enforce natural rights/common law as a universal system and B) 40 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

capitalist argument is A) No way to enforce natural rights/common law as a universal system and B) Private courts and C) Gold Standard. What say you?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

It feels good, since I am rich and succeeded in the real world too. That way I can flummox and perplex people. Of course a private law society could work without a state; the state is the enemy of order and proeprty. It does not foster it or protect it. This is easy. Just use ostracism like the Law Merchant did. Easy. Don't even need force at all, for punishemnt or restitution--only for occasional self-defense, which would be rare too since people would be so rich they would not care if some loser stole from them or they would just give them charity first.
permalink parent

load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] DT777 11 points 14 days ago

Keep up the good work. Feel free to frequent /r/Anarcho_Capitalism and /r/Libertarian whenever, they will no doubt enjoy discussing stuff with you.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

danke
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 11 points 14 days ago

I am a huge fan. Will you come to our Decline to State show for a fun interview?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 9 points 14 days ago

sure, just text me on fb or email me


permalink parent [] throwaway-o 6 points 14 days ago

*giddiness* YAY! ... done. I am a HUGE fan


permalink parent [] jscoppe 3 points 14 days ago

Meh, I've seen bigger. (you guys should ask him about his experience doing this AMA on your show)
permalink parent [] JamesCarlin 14 points 14 days ago

You say intellectual property is unjust because it is involuntarily enforced upon non-consenting individuals, and yet support enforcing physical property norms on non-consenting individuals. How do you reconcile the above? P.S. The complaint that property is involuntarily is commonly and loudly made by communists and various individuals of leftist persuasion.
permalink [] [deleted] 13 points 14 days ago

How do you reconcile the above? Self-ownership axiom. Communists (and to a lesser extent socialists) have a different philosophical basis for what they believe. Its worth mentioning that self-ownership is inclusive as long as its voluntary. If you choose to live with a number of other people in a sub-society which rejects private ownership you are free to do so as long as you don't force others to participate. The benefit of a free society is that you are free to form your own if you disagree with its tenets. 41 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

are free to form your own if you disagree with its tenets.
permalink parent [] JamesCarlin 4 points 14 days ago

Self ownership doesn't answer why tangible property, but not intangible property.
permalink parent [] RIMH 13 points 14 days ago

Scarcity. Property rights and you could even say law only exists to delineate ownership of scarce resources. The reasons your house is your house, and not my house, is because it can only belong to one of us at the same time. You can bring up cohabitation/marriage examples but there's no clear owner in those examples either, that's why divorce battles can be so ferocious. Happily married couples have just agreed to not clearly define ownership of property, or they have and the non-owner accepts it. There is no scarcity of ideas. When you have a great idea, and then you tell me. You don't own the contents of my brain. And you can't expect me to live my life ignoring knowledge I've gained. Intellectual Property isn't property its just a government granted monopoly and guarantee to profits. IP is an entirely fallacious term. Its not property at all. It should be called Intellectual Monopoly.
permalink parent [] Aneirin 4 points 14 days ago

The reasons your house is your house, and not my house, is because it can only belong to one of us at the same time. But that's not the only reason. Other reasons might include incentives concerns (i.e., being able to own the economic benefits of something give you an incentive to produce it) or the need for property rights to exist in order for people to trade. While these are both consequentialist justifications, so is "two people can't claim the same thing at once, and if you tried to run society this way, there would just be rampant violence".
permalink parent [] RIMH 2 points 14 days ago

You're trying to claim potential (though not guaranteed) profits on a subjectively interpreted idea enforced for an arbitrary amount of time by a violent entity that tries to stop people from doing anything vaguely similar, regardless of whether it is a derivative or independently created (just later). Copyright as we know it is barely two hundred years old. And you're trying to compare it the concept of physical ownership of property, especially when almost all violent disputes come down to property disputes/disagreement. As long as there are scare resources people will be disagreeing/fighting over them. If they weren't scarce (like IP) there would be no fighting. You're not fighting to protect your idea. You're fighting for the "right" to artificial monopoly privileges enforced violently.
permalink parent [] Aneirin 3 points 14 days ago

I think you've gotten me wrong. I don't support State IP; in fact, I don't support the State at all. I just think that the "natural rights" arguments against IP are problematic. If I may, I recommend the following resources which outline my ethical beliefs: Is-ought problem The Utilitarian Foundation of Morality by Daniel James Sanchez Libertarianism is Not 'No Gun in the Room' Crusoe, Morality, and Axiomatic Libertarianism 42 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Crusoe, Morality, and Axiomatic Libertarianism I don't believe that I can objectively "prove" some mode of property rights to be ethically correct. I can, however, assert a subjective preference for a society which has some particular property rights scheme (and property rights schemes are really the essence of all political debates), on the basis that it will lead to improved social cooperation and generally higher wealth and happiness. (Also, credit to /u/Nielsio for some of these links.)
permalink parent [] JamesCarlin 3 points 14 days ago

Your not even responding to Aneirin's comment, but rather are ranting on some off-topic accusations that he's arguing things he hasn't stated.
permalink parent [] jevon 1 point 14 days ago

that's why divorce battles can be so ferocious. Before getting civil unioned I looked into what is defined as "relationship property" and it's pretty clearly defined here. The only problem is amicably deciding on the correct split between each person, which people prefer to perform socially rather than logically.
permalink parent [] CANCER_PUNCH 3 points 14 days ago

But particular talents are arguably scarce resources that people are willing to exchange other scarce resources for. If you're a musician who's worked hard to become good and make music people will buy, then other people selling it will deprive you of your opportunity to benefit from it.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] jscoppe 1 point 14 days ago

You make the mistake a lot of anti-IP people make. Scarcity only helps to determine price via supply/demand. It is a thing's rivalrousness which determines whether or not it is worthy of being property. Only 1 person can ride my bicycle at any given time, so I claim it as mine and exclude its use by others for many reasons. Everyone can simultaneously make use of an idea because the cost of reproducing it is insignificant, thus it makes little sense to assign ownership. The reasons your house is your house, and not my house, is because it can only belong to one of us at the same time. That description is alluding to rivalrousness, not scarcity.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (8 replies) [] conn2005 9 points 15 days ago

Stephan- do you believe IP should be abolished cold turkey or phased out? For those who would like an ebook of Kinsella's book, Against Intellectual Property is available for free at mises.org. It's also my understanding that the LvMI copyrighted this publication without his permission.
permalink

43 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] jporch 8 points 15 days ago

You have some sort of source to back this up? If it's just your understanding, it makes little sense. Copyright is automatic unless one voluntarily places it in the public domain. The Mises Institute could not have copyrighted this if Kinsella had waived his copyright by making it public domain. What you probably mean is that they placed it under Creative Commons without his permission, but likewise that doesn't make sense and if he wanted it in the public domain instead then his intentions would trump theirs. So the only thing that makes any sense would be that he wanted it copyrighted but not released under CC, which would mean he favored stronger enforcement of his copyright than the LvMI, which would contradict his position from everything I've ever read of his.
permalink parent [] conn2005 6 points 15 days ago

He told me at Liberty On the Rocks two weeks ago that it was automatically under his copyright and then when he gave the LvMI permission to publish his book, they slapped their copyright on it. Kinsella might elaborate on this more if he responds, but judging by his facial expressions he either didn't care or was over it.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 46 points 14 days ago

they didn't copyright it. they put a copyright notice on it that was false. they said they have copyright; they do not, since it was not a work for hire and I never assigned it in writing. I have the copyright, and all my work it on stephankinsella.com with CC-BY applied to try to liberate it as much as the state will let me. It's bizarre for pro-copyrgiht people to blame me for having copyright that their system imposes on me against my will. It's like telling a black guy that he has no right to be against affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws since he is eligible to use these laws if he wants. why is it his fault if statist impose laws on society?
permalink parent [] ThatRedEyeAlien 3 points 15 days ago

Note that the Mises Institute copyright is still very liberal. You can do pretty much whatever you want with the books as long as you give the original author credit for his work.
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) [] nskinsella [S] 34 points 14 days ago

copyright is automatic. there is no way to "waive" it. http://c4sif.org/2011/04/letsmake-copyright-opt-out/. you can't blame me for this. I would publish it under cc0 or make it public domain if the state would let me.
permalink parent [] jporch 8 points 14 days ago

Thanks, TIL that IP law sucks more than I realized. What is, in your opinion, the least restrictive way to publish written content? I'm familiar with most of the licenses for computer code, being a software developer, but as someone interested in potentially moving towards writing I'd be interested in your opinion.
permalink parent [] l4than-d3vers 2 points 14 days ago

I'm not Kinsella but I'll answer anyway. The least restrictive licenses for software are the so-called "permissive" which include the freebsd license and the mit license. For non-software stuff, CC-BY. This is also what /u/nskinsella uses for his websites and articles, and what mises.org and every other libertarian site that I know of uses.
permalink parent

44 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] apotheon 2 points 14 days ago

Perhaps more helpfully, I'd say to choose licenses from the list of Copyfree Initiative certified licenses. You might note that the CC-BY license isn't on that list; reasons are explained on the list of specifically rejected licenses, though for non-software stuff there are some suitable copyfree licenses. By the way, the word "permissive" when applied to licenses is terribly hand-wavy and lacking in any kind of clear, distinct meaning. At one extreme of "permissive" licenses is stuff like the WTFPL; at the other extreme of licenses sometimes called "permissive" is crap like the LGPL; somewhere in the muddy middle you find things like the AL2 (Apache License 2.0). For my purposes, specifically referring to copyfree licenses (those on the certified list linked above, and any that conform to the Copyfree Standard Definition on the same site that have not been evaluated for certification) is much more precise and meaningful than referring to "permissive" licenses.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (8 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [] nskinsella [S] 32 points 14 days ago

abolished immediately, cold turkey. IT is the 6th worst statist policy, and thre is not a single good thing about it. http://c4sif.org/2012/03/2012/01/where-does-ip-rank-among-the-worststate-laws/
permalink parent

load more comments (16 replies) [] splintercell 6 points 15 days ago

It's also my understanding that the LvMI copyrighted this publication without his permission. Citation needed. You need to back that up with proof dude.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 17 points 14 days ago

they didn't copyright it. copyrgiht is automatic. I own it by operation of law. I never assigned it to anyone else. So I still own it. The Mises Insittute did not copyright. they just erroneously marked it. that is bc/ copyright is confusing. not b/c of malice.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (11 replies) [] BlerpityBloop 7 points 15 days ago

As a free market economist, do you completely reject the idea of 'stimulus spending'?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 47 points 14 days ago

yes.
permalink parent

load more comments (20 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] LDL2 10 points 15 days ago*

Do you think the current gun ownership by 3D printing will lead to the first state intervention? edit: Just realized why that didn't get the response I wanted, because I can't English good.

45 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

edit: Just realized why that didn't get the response I wanted, because I can't English good. Should be: Do you think the gun ownership by being tied to 3D printing will lead to the first state intervention of printers as some companies have even pulled printers because of this?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 34 points 14 days ago

the state will try to find a way to stop 3D printing on gun or Ip grounds, just like it is using IP, child porn, piracy, terrorism, etc. excuses to limit internet rights.
permalink parent [] mangostache 9 points 14 days ago

need more crypto


permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (9 replies) [] [deleted] 15 days ago*

[deleted]
permalink [] jscoppe 25 points 15 days ago

What do Austrian Libertarians think about car ownership? Or pencil ownership? Or circular saw ownership? But seriously, they are all the same answer.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] lefthandhazel 11 points 14 days ago

I don't think you understand what an Austrian Economist is. Its a school of thought, not the economics of Austria. Historically the school of thought was very much developed by people who lived in Austria, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the economics of any place.
permalink parent [] ThatRedEyeAlien 10 points 15 days ago

Anarchocapitalists adhere to the non-aggression principle, which means, roughly, that you may not aggress against someone except as a response against earlier aggression (e.g. self-defence). Solely owning a gun doesn't harm anyone, so it is not illegal to own one.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 34 points 14 days ago

we are for the state having no right to own guns, and no right to stop private people from owning whatever they want. Simple.
permalink parent [] RikF 3 points 14 days ago

The state having no right to own guns, yet the populace allowed to? Would that not lead to right by might and the oppression of minorities?
permalink parent [] highdra 9 points 14 days ago

Would that not lead to right by might and the oppression of minorities? You're thinking of democracy.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] jscoppe 4 points 14 days ago

Monopolies tend to offer lower quality goods and services for higher prices than free

46 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Monopolies tend to offer lower quality goods and services for higher prices than free markets with competition. An anarcho-capitalist, like myself and Mr. Kinsella, essentially holds and accepts that the services of dispute resolution and defense from the aggression of others are fundamentally no different from any other service, and thus would be better offered by competitors in a free market. You would be able to purchase rights protection services the same way you purchase anything else. The competing firms would keep one another in check.
permalink parent [] RikF 4 points 14 days ago

How could I hope to hire a 'dispute resolution' company able to deal with the 'dispute resolution' company owned by Walmart? Our current system is flawed, this one seems laughable. It is not intended (no matter what happens - I don't for a moment suggest that the current system isn't flawed), in the current system, that victory should go to the deepest pockets, this was seems designed to ensure that.
permalink parent

load more comments (9 replies) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [] splintercell 8 points 15 days ago

We are all for it.


permalink parent

load more comments (8 replies) [] 1Subject 4 points 15 days ago

Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control: a Spatial and Geographical Analysis by Walter Block and Matthew Block
permalink parent [] JamesCarlin 3 points 15 days ago

Libertarian values generally say "a person may do as they please with their person or property, unless they violate the person or property of another." So gun ownership is permissible and even fought for by most libertarians. Though that ownership tends to not include "shooting at your neighbors."
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [] acepincter 5 points 14 days ago

Did you know that almost every question in this AMA was going to be a challenge based on the economy as we know it rather than any future monetary policy or economic structure, perhaps those of barter, social credit, time-banks, etc, in which your philosophy would probably find a better home? If so, how will you address that problem and ask people to think "outside the box" of the ruthless, dog-eat-dog economic-growth-at-all-costs paradigm into which we were born and have lived all our lives? Serious question - I wrestle with this problem daily.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 11 points 14 days ago

it's hard to get people to challenge the received wisdom. but consider the fall of communism in 1990: it was a teaching moment. Most people now do not think central economic planning is viable. Not b/c they read mises but b/c they saw the collapse of communism. So I hope that over time there is gradual economic enlightenment as people see the beneficence of the market.
permalink parent

47 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (4 replies) [] [deleted] 3 points 14 days ago

I can certainly understand the case for eliminating patents although until the negative externalities created by government intervention in some markets is resolved they are essential; drug development wouldn't occur without patents while they simply don't make sense in fields like software. Copyright is a pretty clear case of simple property rights though. As a Rothbardian I am sure you evolve rights from self-ownership so how does denying property rights sit with self-ownership? Certainly the government has no business being involved in enforcement and the recourse rights holders have should be purely civil but that is very different from eliminating copyright entirely. If I sell you something, however intangible that something is, you are bound by the contract we agreed at sale. If that contract stipulates you may not copy it then violating that is pretty clearly a breach of contract, preventing that breach from being litigated is a violation of my property rights. Those who choose to make use of copies are equally as responsible for breach of contract, there are clear terms attached to use of my IP and choosing to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist. How is this consistent with self-ownership? On the Austrian side what drew you to such a heterodox school and one that has such poor empirical support? I certainly appreciate that as libertarians its very easy to fall in to the trap of believing that because we have a rationalist philosophical basis the same standard should be applied to economics but in economics rationality simply doesn't mean the same thing; we don't reject evidence in support or against our views simply because it has a statistical basis (I can think of many hundreds of cases where we use statistical based arguments for libertarianism) yet that is precisely what Austrian does. Irrespective of how many times positions are shown to be entirely wrong they refuse to accept those observations and change their theories as the basis for those observations is statistical. As a rational person wouldn't a different school such as Chicago make sense?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

there is no good argument for IP, rothbardian or otherwise. think again.


permalink parent [] ShqiptarMalsia 4 points 14 days ago

I think people underestimate the desire to seek out the original creator. In a free market, I would personal avoid people who make a habit of duplicating people's creative works and selling it on their own. I'd seek out the original creator and support them. Most people would. Do you think that would be the case as well?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

I think people will buy or get informaiton from the most convenient sourece. Sometimes that's the author, but not always. I think the stigma about selling or providing copied informaiton would dwindle to zero in a free market, just like I think there would be less racism and religion as people become more rational.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [] kerbstomper 3 points 14 days ago*

When it comes to pharmaceuticals, how would you keep companies investing in research and development without patents. If i can remember an equation from my econ law class a few years ago, i believe the basic equation is profit x length of patent - cost to develop, or the YK value.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 9 points 14 days ago

48 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

see chapter 9 of Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly, at www.c4sif.org/resources. they explain the flaws in this view. The main costs of pharma are not those protected by patents; it's marketing, etc. And the other costs are imposed by the goddamned state via the FDA, taxes, etc. If you want innovation then get the state out of the goddamned way. don't ask it for more interventions.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] MrZander 2 points 14 days ago

What stops a million dollar company from just taking every idea they see profitable and selling it? Any average Joe who has a brilliant idea and insufficient resources is going to be overshadowed. No one will want to share ideas and giant companies will just get bigger while the little guys get washed out.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

you can't "take" ideas from people. they still have their information. What you mean is: what stops some other company from competing with you by selling similar stuff? Why, nothing. That's called "the free marekt"
permalink parent [] MrZander 3 points 14 days ago

How do you see that as a good thing? It holds back innovation and increases the gap between the rich and the poor.
permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] 4li5t4ir 4 points 14 days ago

What are your opinions on the Rothbard vs David Friedman private law debate? I think that Rothbard is right fundamentally, but Friedman's arguments seem more likely to apply in the real world where people don't necessarily care/know about natural rights.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 11 points 14 days ago

I agree. Rothbard is better but Friedman is perhaps more persuasive to the typical person who is somewhat unprincipled, pragmatic, and utilitarian.
permalink parent [] ParadiseCost 3 points 14 days ago

To what extent do you oppose IP? Should slander or libel be punishable offenses? If I were to do an AMA claiming to be you, and then also claim (as you) to have committed disgusting crimes that end up being attributed to you even after it's discovered that I am an imposter, would that be a crime on my part? (I'm not trying to "stump" you, I'm actually hoping you can help clarify my own views on the matter).
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

Slander and libel (defamation) are types of IP and should be abolished. so should patent, copyright, trademark. The former is discussed in Rothbard's Ethics of liberty, free online. The AMA thing you mention has nothing to do with any of these things or with IP; at most it is a blend of fraud, contract breach, and plagiarism. None of which have to do with IP.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

I am totally opposed to defamation law. I view it as a type of IP. It is based on the same conflicted idea that there is a property right in value.

49 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

permalink

parent

[] chowdertheclam 2 points 14 days ago

Whats your favorite type of ice cream?


permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

Pecan crunch.
permalink parent [] spiffiness 2 points 14 days ago

What strategies should anti-IP activists employ to try to abolish IP? Would it make sense to concentrate our efforts on fighting for IP abolition in a high-profile, controversial area first, such as perhaps software or business method patents? I'm thinking that maybe if we can get a win in one area, society can see how much good it did, and then would be more open to IP abolition in other areas. (Then again, it seems like society is blind to how much innovation there is in industries with little or no IP protection today, such as, I believe, fashion and cuisine.) Your thoughts?
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] icanhazareddit 3 points 14 days ago

What incentive would there be to invest, create and innovate without copyright or patents? Also, have you ever read John Locke's Second Treatise on Government?
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] CSOtherwritting 2 points 13 days ago

What would cause incentive for people to create new ideas and ways of doing things, like: finding a new medicine, building a saver bridge, ect, if they do not have protection from people taking their ideas, with lower cost because the lack of R&D, and producing and creating their work?
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] M4ltodextrin 4 points 13 days ago

Hypothetical: I am a writer. I have just finished my first novel. I'm looking into publishing options, sent my manuscript out to a couple of places, in fact, I just got published, hooray! It's a small publisher, so I'm looking at a very limited first release, but hey, better than nothing, right? Then, one day, as I'm walking around the mall, I see, under new releases, my book, with my name peeled off, and someone else put on. Turns out a large publisher with much better distribution liked my book, so they copied it, and put it out to the world. Not only that, their version has a better cover picture, better print quality, and is cheaper than the legitimate version. Or maybe they do credit me, and it's indistinguishable from the legitimate version, save the UPC. The only difference, when their version gets purchased, I see no money from it. Would I, in this hypothetical Intellectual Property-less world have any sort of recourse, or counter against this? Or am I just supposed to suck it up and take it as it is? If I'm trying to make a career as a writer, and someone with more resources than me can take that work, profit from it, undercut me at every turn, and deny me any sort of compensation for my work, then what incentive do I have to even attempt to continue?
permalink load more comments (18 replies) [] MANarchocapitalist 14 points 15 days ago

I agree with your position. How do you convince people who don't. Preferable through a practical, rather than moral, lens.

50 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

permalink [] nskinsella [S] 29 points 14 days ago

that's hard, but there are countless examples of abuse and obvious injustice. You can also put the burden of proof on the IP advocates. If they claim that it's necessary to have IP to have invention and innovation and artistic creation, point to examples that preceded modern IP and ask them how this was possible. And ask them where the stoppoing point is--some alleged libertarians actually support tax funded subsidies for innovation. where is the stoppoing point? http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000000206
permalink parent [] MANarchocapitalist 1 point 14 days ago

Thanks.
permalink parent [] throwaway-o 1 point 14 days ago

That's correct. I generally ask people to prove to me that intangibles are property (which is their fundamental, propaganda-paid-for claim), giving them as a condition that they may not point to claims in pieces of paper as proof that something is or isn't property. That usually shuts off their legal angle argumentation. But sometimes some people reveal themselves at this point to be rabid religious fanatics of the "Godvernment and law have always existed" kind, or of the "how DARE you doubt the ultimate truth of the legal scriptures"; ironically these tend to be mostly atheists (or so they claim). Them I decline politely to discuss, pointing out that if they can't make their case solely on reality (as opposed to orders ordained by their priests and divinities), then nothing I say will change their minds, because their mind is already hostile to reality. For the rest, at this point they usually explain their theory of property (which is what I wanted to get to in the first place). From there, it's usually Socratic questioning until they themselves start questioning it. It's easy.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] blastoise_mon 4 points 15 days ago

Can you explain the technological advancement gap between countries and regions with strong IP laws (US, EU, Japan) and countries that don't? How does this trend work in the mind of a person who wants to abolish patent law?
permalink [] Aneirin 6 points 14 days ago

Adding on to Mr. Kinsella's answer, it's also worth noting that in stages of early industrial development, countries which had weaker IP laws (whether in regard to domestic or foreign works) tended to do better. For a fuller case, I recommend Chapter 8 of Against Intellectual Monopoly by David K. Levine and Michele Boldrin.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 32 points 14 days ago*

sure--we have stronger property rights in general. we have more prosperity because of property rights laws, and despite IP laws. Correlation is not causation. After all the US is warlike and imperialist, has has slavery, institutionalized racism and misogyny, the drug war, controls on immigration, tarriffs, but only a dunderhead would say these are the cause of our prosperity. We are prosperous despite these measures, despite the state, not beacuse of it. Without the state we would be immeasurably richer. as for backup for my "8 times richer" comments -- see l. neil smith http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/11/how-much-richer-would-be-in-a-free-societyl-neil-smiths-great-speech/
permalink parent

51 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

permalink

parent

load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [] jdkeith 4 points 14 days ago

I recognize that the effort put into creation of intangibles is scarce, even if they are non-rivalrous. I think the anti-IP crowd spends too much time claiming that IP is dumb because it's not scarce. There are plenty of reasons to be leery of IP which don't have anything to do with that: 1. It can't be policed without some sort of invasive force (at least currently). Any government powerful and invasive enough to find out what you're pirating is not likely to use their powers solely for policing IP infractions. 2. it can become censorship and, sorry, I believe that truth is greater than IP 3. what really separates humans from the animals at this point is our accumulated tree of knowledge. IP for a property right's sake is duuuumb and few justify it that way. To add things to the tree of knowledge - maybe limited-term IP can be justified - but if you can't take things out of the tree (indefinite IP) then people are no better off than if you didn't invent or write something so why should they respect a rights claim? The terms keep getting extended. 4. Violating IP doesn't violate the harm test. Remove the other and, yeah, someone watching a movie without your permission stops, but it's not empirically measurable which means IT DOESN'T MATTER. If money is an issue, remove the customer and you don't get money anyways. With automatic copyright, how the hell do I find out who to send a check to? In the case of Bill Watterson, he didn't want to license out Calvin and Hobbes to merchandising so others started making those Calvin-looking things pissing on the Ford/Chevy/Dodge logos. While I respect Watterson's artistic integrity, on what grounds does he have to legally challenge that? There was a market demand and he wasn't meeting it or allowing it to be met. Remember, IP cannot be justified to me without reference to benefiting society through enticing people to produce. At best he could argue that artists would be discouraged if people ruined creations through commercialization. 5. All ideas and works rip off others so it's kind of hypocritical to make a claim on something which has components you cribbed from others without attribution or compensation. Example: Disney. 6. It diminishes culture and trade of ideas. MLK's heirs basically extorted money out of others to use his "I have a Dream" speech which is part of American culture.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

" I think the anti-IP crowd spends too much time claiming that IP is dumb because it's not scarce" IP are the legal rights attempting to provide property protection in non-rivalrous resources. IP is not nonscarce; it's the resources that it tries to protect that are nonscarce. The problem is not that it's "dumb"; it's that legal rights to nonrivalrous things can never be justified, since that always necessarily implies invasion of property rights in scarce resources.
permalink parent [] jdkeith 4 points 14 days ago

I justify things in terms of effects as well as logical consistency. Rights exist to serve people. Inasmuch as they don't do that, they're pointless. Furthermore I'd argue that rights are simply intersubjective respect constructs, so rights (even negative rights) have costs and rights will disappear if they are too costly to respect. IP is simply too costly to respect and enforce. The invasion of scarce property trying to defend the copying of ideas is just one specific part of that larger issue.
permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies)

52 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] ZeroBugBounce 6 points 14 days ago

Do you agree with this Mises.org ethics position that "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children" and "the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." Basically, should the law be forbidden from punishing a parent who allows their child to stave to death, based on the arguments from the linked article?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 9 points 14 days ago

no, i believe in positive obligations assumed by virtue of actions like siring a child -- see http://www.mises.org/story/2291
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] socialist123 6 points 15 days ago*

What incentive would there be to invest in research and development knowing someone would take your work without putting in the same amount of money, yes, consumers may win but the investor loses. This may inevitably lead to a lack of development among many products.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

no one can "take" your work. they can compete with you, emulate or copy or learn from you. stop whining and accept the free market. stop asking for protection from the evil state
permalink parent

load more comments (26 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] GoldenHamster 6 points 14 days ago

I took a Mises University class with you a few years ago. The topic of economic predictions came up and you mentioned that you did not believe that there would be any significant "collapse" of the current economic system (such as hyperinflation). You argued that the private economy would continue to be so productive and so innovative that it would continue to support the ever-growing state. You said we would not experience a significant decrease in our standard of living caused by the socialist economy. Do you still hold to these predictions? Can you elaborate on your explanation?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 14 points 14 days ago

I dn't think I predicted this; I just said I hoped for this and thought it was possible. I still do. we have not had hyperinflation yet, have we?--despite predictions to the contrary from lots of austrian doom and gloomers.
permalink parent [] rattamahatta 3 points 14 days ago

Of which none predicted that we would have hyperinflation at this time. They might say we're still on the track towards it, with increasing speed, without setting a specific time frame. They are also not saying hyperinflation would be inevitable. Many things can happen, policy wise, in the next 10-20 years, things could change. Maybe China changes some of their strategy. Maybe interest rates have to rise at some point. We don't know. All they're saying is, if we wanted hyperinflation to occur at some point, we're doing it right.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [] SerialMessiah 2 points 15 days ago

53 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


[] SerialMessiah 2 points 15 days ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

Would you expect to see any changes in aggregate behavior following the abolition of IP? Could trade secrets provide sufficient means of protecting innovations? Will upcoming changes in the enforceability of IP spell its doom?
permalink load more comments (2 replies) [] sideoffries 3 points 15 days ago

How did studying at LSU's law school affect your views? Does it give you a different perspective than most attorneys?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 12 points 14 days ago

not in IP, but it did expose me to civil law. At first I thought it was more rationalist and superior, then I gravitated to the common law, then i rejected both in favor of anarchy but nowadays think the civil law approach is in many ways superior, except for the legislative posivism. see http://mises.org/daily/4147 and http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kinsella-pfs-2012the-states-corruption-of-private-law/
permalink parent [] JBeezy 3 points 14 days ago

Recently, there are been incidents of home owners planting gardens in their front yard and ultimately being told to remove the gardens. The local municipalities rely on "public good" or "public interest" as the justification. Assuming a municipality was silent on the matter or was considering a policy, what do you think is the best solution? The next door neighbor and the gardener both rely on property rights to advance their positions. The neighbor complaining of diminished property value and nuisance. The gardener then points to his individual property rights. Where is the line drawn?
permalink load more comments (2 replies) [] blore40 3 points 14 days ago

I remember reading about some Australian guy getting the patent for the wheel. How did this happen?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

doesn't ring a bell but given that state agencies are incompetent, inept, and enforcing arbitrary, vague unjust laws, nothing would surprise me.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] CarlofTime 2 points 14 days ago

Thanks for doing the AMA! I have one problem with what you are suggesting, and that the current way that the global market is set up really puts small business at a disadvantage. Why? Because it costs money to make all of your products to sell and it takes money to advertise it. Lets take the "Regular Joe invents a tool" example. And I'm talking about tomorrow. He invents the tool tomorrow. He goes to the patent office and patents the idea. It's his now, and no one else can make it. A large auto manufacturer sees the idea and says, "Oh hell, we can make those easy." So they negotiate a deal with Regular Joe and they buy it from him and he retains 60% sales. They cover the cost of producing and advertising and Regular Joe gets the satisfaction of the product hitting the shelves and helping mechanics globally, while making some profit off of his invention. Now lets put it into your idea. TOMORROW! (Not in a dream world were big companies don't exist and everyone starts from scratch.) Same thing happens at the start. Regular Joe invents the tool. He doesn't go to the patent office because it doesn't exist. Instead he goes to a good friend whose got a bit of money. They make a prototype with that little bit and go to a manufacturer to estimate the cost for pre-production. Then they go to an advertisement agency where they get the cost estimated for advertising. Then finally they go to retail stores and get estimates to stock the store 54 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

estimated for advertising. Then finally they go to retail stores and get estimates to stock the store with their product. All is in line and golden. Problem is, the large manufacturer already heard about the product and is already shipping out their high quality, name brand tools. Regular Joe knows that this is friendly competition so he is okay with it. Nothing like competition to get the blood running. So his friend and him finally cover the costs for the manufacturing, advertising and stocking. Problem is, they've only got their tool in 100 stores only across half the nation. The Large Manufacturer? You guessed it. 4,000+ stores, potentially global, with a reliable name behind their product and at a lower cost because of efficiency and low cost of production. Regular Joe invented it, and it's a great product, but nobody knows who he is or gives a fuck. They want a reliable instrument that will last through tough jobs and the company they purchased from hasn't let them down before. Regular Joe's tool tanks and lost a shit ton of money when he could've just sold the patent to the large company and sequestered some of the funds himself for inventing the thing in the first place. Thoughts?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

this set of questions is not an argument in favor of patent law. that's my thought. in a free market Joe has to decide whether it's worth it to him to innovate, and whether he can make a psychic or monetary profit by engaging in it, in the face of market competition. simple. easy. By the way under today's system Joe's getting a patent does not give hi the right to sell the tool. He might be violating 100 other patents. Eliminate patents and he is free to make the tool, though he is also now subject to competition. Being subject to competition is what we call "the free market." I know a lost of socialists and democrats do not like free market competition, but that's their error.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] cryptoglyph 3 points 14 days ago

I recently sent your 63 pp. anti-IP treatise to a friend who "can't wrap his head around the idea that some libertarians don't value IP." He read it and responded, So I read the IP book, and I think it relies on a couple false premises. For instance, in the discussion on natural rights, I think it fails dramatically. It presupposes that all creators of ideas want to limit access - my property is the result of my labor, and its value is determined by how I choose to limit the supply, and the demand for it. If I don't want to limit access to it, that's my choice. If someone else makes that decision for me, then I am being infringed upon. How would you respond?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

if he means we don't value ideas, he is wrong. we value them, we just realize they are not rivalrous resources and thus not subject to property rights. if he means we don't valiue IP--the laws that attempt to protect proeprty rights in ideas--he is right: we disvalue IP because we think it is harmful. I don't based my argument on any presupposition that creators of ideas want to limit access. The argument is very simple: you have no right to tell someone what htey cannot do with their own body and resources, so long as it does not trespass against your body or owned resources. See http://archive.mises.org/17398/intellectual-property-rights-as-negative-servitudes/
permalink parent [] Shahe_B 3 points 14 days ago

Stephan, I remember reading last year that some GOP staffers got fired for suggesting we retool or even eliminate some of our IP laws. My question is how long until we actually see Congress introducing bills to change, limit or eliminate various IP laws? Also, if anyone's interested, I have a facebook group that focuses on the fundamentals of an IP-less society. https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenBrainGroup 55 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

society. https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenBrainGroup
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

most people are so unprinicpled and utilitarian, and accept the constitution as holy writ, and congress is in the pocket of big content, so I don't see it changing. The laws will just hvae to be evaded.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] MangoBomb 3 points 14 days ago

I have been curious about intellectual property rights and am glad you're doing this AMA. As a writer, my question is regarding what motivation does an artist -- a writer in this case -- have in creating a product if someone else can simply duplicate and sell it for less money? Take the extreme: If I write a book that takes years to complete and wish to sell it for two cents, what incentive is there in writing the book, aside from the joy of creation, if there is someone who will sell it for one cent?
permalink load more comments (3 replies) [] liesperpetuategovmnt 3 points 14 days ago*

Hello sir, What are your views on contractual release, e.g. I make a contract stating terms of use and such and a $1000 penalty is imposed for breaking the contract. I then have all those who wish to buy early release of whatever sign contract. I think it would result in similar filesharing yet the government would no longer be involved with criminal charges. Obviously third parties would be immune to this restriction. I personally just release nearly all of my software for free anyways. I use a fairly popular contract / license called the GPL which says that further "remixes" must too be open, yet they can be charged for distribution. BSD is another one I use frequently which does not require openness. I used the contract idea in a discussion with a musician who is heavy pro government & IP and we both believe it has merit. However, I only believe that these licenses will stop businesses from violation.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

$1000 it too small a deterrent to make a difference to real piracy; a greater penalty is going to cause people to refuse to sign the deal. And third parties are not affected. So this cannot work. Peolpe hate the idea of free market competition and always try to find ways to stop copmetition. I am all for them trying this--I oppose all antitrust law--but I don't tihink it will work well.
permalink parent [] liesperpetuategovmnt 2 points 14 days ago

Thanks for the reply, I see your points. Keep up the good fight my friend, tu ne cede malis.
permalink parent [] Shahe_B 3 points 14 days ago

One of the most bizarre and unjust rulings under IP law is that some organic life can be patented. Thoughts on this?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

all of IP and patnet law is unjust. Not just this.


permalink parent [] DaphneDK 3 points 14 days ago

Some movies cost $100M+ and some software products have teams consisting of hundreds of full time developers. What will be the business case for such products in a world without patents?
permalink

56 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


permalink [] nskinsella [S] 1 point 14 days ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

is the purpose of the state to make sure we have enough $100M movies? In any case-blockbusters thrived in the pre-VHS/DVD age, when all the profits came from selling tickets in movies, and today they make plenty money selling tickets to movies. http://c4sif.org/2012/01 /a-scene-from-return-of-the-king-the-third-part-of-lord-of-the-rings-debunking-the-argumentthat-no-blockbusters-would-be-made-without-the-copyright-monopoly/ anyway see http://c4sif.org/2010/11/doctorow-what-do-we-want-copyright-to-do/ " I love sitting in an air-conditioned cave watching Bruce Willis beat up a fighter jet with his bare hands as much as the next guy, but if I have to choose between that and all of YouTube, well, sorry Bruce."
permalink parent [] youcallthatacting 5 points 14 days ago

Whoever wrote the article on "no blockbusters made" knows extremely little on today's movie industry. Very few movies make their money on ticket sales now. Much of their income is from foreign DVD, rental, selling related items. This is article is extremely misleading and the author knows nothing.
permalink parent [] DaphneDK 4 points 14 days ago

is the purpose of the state to make sure we have enough $100M movies? People that put ideology before real world problems are always to be suspected. I like $100M+ movies. And I like computer games, and Photoshop, etc. And your response pretty much boils down to: too bad, its not it my ideology. If you cannot present a business model whereby it will be possible to create $100M movies, expensive computer games, and other software, then I cannot see how your alternative world is an improvement. We get to copy things for free but the things available for copying would generally be shit. Great Success! Everybody Happy! In any case--blockbusters thrived in the pre-VHS/DVD age, when all the profits came from selling tickets in movies, and today they make plenty money selling tickets to movies. Is that some kind of silly argument that all things were better in the good ole days before computers, digital movies, software and all the rest? In any case, they had copyright laws pre-VHS too, and one guy could not simply decide to make his own copies of cinema movies to sell or screen in his own cinemas. I love sitting in an air-conditioned cave watching Bruce Willis beat up a fighter jet with his bare hands as much as the next guy, but if I have to choose between that and all of YouTube, well, sorry Bruce." Are you seriously saying that you prefer 2 min. YouTube clips of dancing hamsters to a thriving movie (& television, music, game, software, book, etc.) industry? Well Im off to watch an episode of Mad Men, courtesy of the Hollywood patent industry. I'm certain it'll be available for free on YouTube in your world. Or not.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] kaces 3 points 14 days ago

What are your views on maliciously intended piracy - piracy driven solely to negatively impact the source?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

I have no view on it other than it's fine.


permalink parent [] nomothetique 1 point 14 days ago

Three questions for you Stephan but only one on IP: 1) I am an anarchist libertarian and took your course on IP through LvMI before. I already understood why we ought to abolish IP, as well as all government before that. Now working on my 57 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

understood why we ought to abolish IP, as well as all government before that. Now working on my own business, problems with IP have happened. So far, I have done nothing but I could potentially be a plaintiff and don't know if I should pursue it or not. I really have a full buffet of IP here: Patent. I haven't even had a search run yet but I think we could have a pretty strong one for a method. It is coming up on two years now and I don't have a ton of money, but this could potentially be valuable enough one day to make patenting worth it. Should I just think about doing a research disclosure to protect ourselves going ahead? Trademark. Although neither company has a registered trademark, I was doing interstate/int'l business first and think I would have a stronger claim. This has had negative consequences for my business, but they are all the result of voluntary interactions, so I don't see doing anything here; however this group A may have something to do with the next section. Libel. Because of the special method we use, one competitor hates us and has done all sorts of libelous things. There's probably some criminal elements (trespass/hacking) plus I know that he is a drug abuser and have fairly good evidence on all of this. Also, I am pretty sure he (B) is doing things wrong and selling dangerous products to people. Legally, IP and "speech crimes" are unjustifiable, but I also have no other recourse than the system we have. Do you think it is unethical to pursue any or all of these potential claims? 2) Do you agree with this "compensation ratio" idea? I think it is faulty but I have to go run errands so my argument for why will be brief. I think that where the detection rate is so low for whatever reason, this in a sense constitutes a threat and should be subsumed under the "premium for scaring" aspect. With "the teeth", I think it is more sound to just stick to what was taken and whether there was intention or not. For non-homogenous goods there is already enough arbitrariness there. The circumstances of the criminal event can make something which is otherwise usually not into a threat. For example, the story of in the Wild West, the punishment for stealing a horse being death, because someone would be stranded without one I guess. 3) Where do we go beyond argumentation ethics and estoppel? I think the way is using a lot of ideas from Adolf Reinach and more soundly correlating everything to Mises' praxeology. There's a video of a speech by Barry Smith at U. Marroquin from a while back where he talks about this as some sort of project being worked on by Austrians. There was a JLS with several articles but since then, not much. Is anyone working on this? I thought Hoppe might be but I was disappointed that his last book was just a collection of old stuff.
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] OrlandoMagik 3 points 14 days ago

Stephan, somehting that libertarians have never been able to explain to me is how to deal with the powerful business interests that are ALWAYS willing to trade your long-term interests in exchange for their short-term interests. Environment? Sure I'll extract a few billion out of that forest, that mine, that ocean and destroy it in the process. If you don't like it don't do business with me and I'll go out of business. In the mean time there are lots of hungry folk out of there that WILL do business with me because they don't know any better and they are as greedy as me. If you sue I'll be on the islands retired while you deal with my $500/hour lawyers. Good luck collecting if you win. Perhaps you can shed some light regarding how this can be resolved?
permalink load more comments (7 replies) [] KaseyB 1 point 14 days ago

Out of curiosity... why is everyone referring to Kinsella as "Dr. Kinsella"? I've NEVER heard an attorney refer to themselves as "doctor." Even if it was because he was a professor, that usually comes with the "professor' appellation. 58 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... comes with the "professor' appellation.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

It's probably out of respect or deference, but though I have a JD whcih entitles me to the doctor title (http://www.stephankinsella.com/2002/04/doctor-lawyer/) I do not ask for or insist on it. I will say that it's nice for europeans and students to be humble and respectful and to give me the compliment of assuming i must have a PhD, even though I don't. I'd rather people give me that naturally, than get a PhD that no one respects.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] idleinmyideals 3 points 14 days ago

Do you believe that the abolishment of patent and copyright would stifle free market innovation? Example: A bright, creative individual creates a new cheap and improved tooth whitener. However, he knows that as soon as he attempts to put it out on the market, it will be used almost instantly by Crest and Total and other huge name brands. He doesn't bother trying to sell it. How likely/unlikely is this scenario? Also, how will this effect small business?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

No, I think we woud have far more innovation in a free market with no IP. I think your scenario is unrealistic and static.
permalink parent [] meatlumpking 3 points 14 days ago

Given that you think the state should be abolished, yet believe in free market capitalism, who do you believe would protect everyone? Wouldn't corporations take on state like behavior?
permalink [] cromulenticular 1 point 14 days ago

State-like behavior is initiation of violence and coercion. Let's hope that such actions would be unacceptable to customers and shareholders in a truly free society. However, the modern state has also added some services to its repertoire that are not inherently violent or coercive (e.g. ROADZ), and those activities could be handled perfectly well by corporations and private investment.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

I don't grant you the right to your "yet" as i don't see an incompatibility; in fact I see that libertarianism and free markets imply anti-statism. the very purpose of being libertarian is because of opposition to aggression; but if you oppose aggression you have to oppose the state. No, in a free market no agency could act like the state because it would be widely regarded as acting in a criminal manner; it would immediately lose customers and be viewed as a hostile actor by all the other, civilized, agencies.
permalink parent [] CoolHeadedPaladin 1 point 14 days ago

Just to make a point, which you may wish to elaborate upon, monopolies and big corporations must use the coercive power of the government to stay that way. In a free market model rigorous competition would limit the size of corporate entities. There is a reason big corporations give to politicians that support government regulations on their respective industries, it keeps start ups from competing.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

It is possible corporations would be smaller in a free market, but I think that there would be more and larger corporations and more self-sufficient/semi-retired contractor/outsourcer types.
permalink parent

59 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

load more comments (1 reply) [] SOLUNAR 3 points 14 days ago

"I also believe intellectual property (patent and copyright) is completely unjust, statist, protectionist, and utterly incompatible with private property rights, capitalism...." Hmm i often see IP as a big incentive for people to go and develop these great things, services and products. You think that IP is incompatible with this? Id love to see hear your take. I just see the need to protect one's own work as an incentive for putting the work. I think many authors, artist and other folks would be less likely to put so much work and time into their works if there was a possibility of straight out plagiarism, or others exploiting their work for their own gain. Things like pharmaceuticals that spend hundreds of millions would have little to no incentive in having the groundwork done, if anyone could just come and steal the work? Interested in the opinion
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

It's not an incentive; or, rather, it's an incentive that comes with other disincentives. In any case, whether it is an incentive or not, it's not justified. the purpose of law is not to tweak incentives. and copying and competing with others is not "stealing" anything. You don't take anything from th person you are competing with. They still have their "work" as you call it.
permalink parent

load more comments (4 replies) [] spiffiness 1 point 14 days ago

What does your employer (clients?) that pays you to help them with patent law think about your extra-curricular activities working to abolish patent law? How do you personally come to terms with the fact that you're an anti-IP crusader who makes his living helping a company protect its IP?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

They don't care; they just want competence and professionalism. I mean do you care what your airplane pilot or heart surgeon's religion is? I only do defensive IP. I refuse to cooperate in helping aggressively assert IP. But companies need to have IP and patents, if only to defend themselves if they are sued. I have various posts on this at stephankinsella.com and c4sif.org
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] AttackTheMoon 3 points 14 days ago

Do you know Ron Paul?


permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

I've met him but not sure if he knows who I am.


permalink parent [] Facade949 1 point 14 days ago

Hi, I'm a Computer Science major in my freshman year and currently am looking at intellectual property law as my main career interest. I read Against Intellectual Property on Mises.org and have been a huge fan of yours since. I guess my question for you is if you have any career advice about intellectual property law. Additionally, do you believe that the eradication of intellectual property is feasible (as in can we actually get there from here)?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

I have some crude advice here http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/advice60 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

I have some crude advice here http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/advicefor-prospective-libertarian-law-students/ but it is a big dated, and I am not sure what to tell people now. I tend to think that law is a difficult career to go into--you should not go into it unless you LOVE law and want to do it no matter what; or you are confident you can be top 3% of your class and get a top job, and don't think you'll hate it. And I think IP is here for a while unfortunately.
permalink parent [] saxmanb 3 points 13 days ago*

How can you be a patent attorney and advocate the abolition of patents? Isn't that position directly contrary to your ethical duty to zealously represent your client? EDIT: Do you disclose to your clients that you are in favor of abolishing patents?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 0 points 13 days ago

there is no contradiction any more than an oncologist who hates cancer or a lawyer defending people from incarceration for tax evasion or drug crimes who opposes such laws. I do not hide my views, but my clients do not care; they want competence only. Some of them like that i hate IP, esp. if they are being persecuted. For more: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07 /an-anti-patent-patent-attorney/ and http://c4sif.org/2011/04/are-anti-ip-patent-attorneyshypocrites/ and http://c4sif.org/2012/02/rothbard-on-lawyers-accountants-locks-and-safesand-patent-lawyers/ and http://c4sif.org/2010/12/patent-lawyers-who-don%e2%80%99t-toethe-line-should-be-punished/ and
permalink parent [] saxmanb 3 points 13 days ago

I'm sorry but your comparison with respect to an oncologist is not valid. An oncologist is a medical doctor sworn to "do no harm" and fight cancer as much as possible. No oncologist "loves" cancer. With respect to criminal law, a defense attorney can ethically withdraw if she feels she cannot ethically defend someone. If she is a public defender and cannot withdraw and knows her client is guilty, it is her ethical duty to put the prosecution to its proof. There is no analogous situation in patent law. You choose to hold yourself as a "patent lawyer" but your political views on the subject require you to denounce your profession in its entirety. This is hypocritical. I just don't see how you can advocate for others to respect your clients' patent rights while at the same time you don't believe your clients should have patent rights at all. It's paying a preacher who openly admits he's an atheist.
permalink parent [] [deleted] 1 point 13 days ago

Bingo, saxmanb. Mr. Kinsella is a hypocrite with no principles. He fights for something he purports to hate (probably for decent money too) & he lives in & continues to take advantage of the benefits provided by a paternalistic state like the US. He can't leave because he knows his ideas would result in catastrophic failure if put into practice. It's the reason why the most advanced countries are more socialistic (the UK, France, Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, Scandanavia, the US, etc.). Mr. Kinsella & his nave followers love this country (despite their constant bitching) & wouldn't trade it for a thousand "anarcho-capitalist" hellholes.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [] JamesCarlin 5 points 15 days ago

Do you reject all norms regarding intangibles?


permalink [] nskinsella [S] 15 points 14 days ago

of course not; it is immoral to insult your grandma gratuitously.


permalink parent

61 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


permalink parent

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] Randy_Manimal 4 points 14 days ago

That sounds like something my idiot grandma would say.


permalink parent

load more comments (7 replies) [] DJ_Thundercock 10 points 14 days ago

I am an anarchist libertarian writer who thinks patent and copyright should be abolished. I think you just gave Reddit one big collective boner.
permalink [] building_a_moat 59 points 14 days ago

Reddit doesn't like anarchist libertarians - they like government control as much as typical Republicans, just over different things.
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) [] jporch 15 points 14 days ago

Nah, he's an individualist, so the boners are individual ones.


permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] KerasTasi 6 points 14 days ago

A couple of general questions about anarcho-capitalism: 1) If the state is abolished, who then will care for those individuals who are utterly dependent e.g. orphans or the severely disabled? 2) How does anarcho-capitalism ensure equality of access to the law? It would seem that in a society without a state, but with strong contract law, the construction of carefully formulated contracts would be central to participation in society, allowing individuals to sell their productive capacity. I would foresee a huge problem in this, as those who could afford the best lawyers would possess an enormous advantage over those without the wherewithal to do so. If I was particularly poor and could not afford a lawyer at all, how could I be assured that I would get a fair deal with someone who could afford to employ several? 3) How would anarcho-capitalism interact with social issues? For example, should a community elect to refuse any trading arrangement with non-whites on purely racial grounds - something we today would consider abhorrent - would there be any mechanism for preventing this? Whilst history indicates states have been just as complicit in enforcing these policies, it is also worth noting that states have taken many significant steps in combating discrimination - without such a widespread coercive institution, do we have any mechanism to limit a re-occurrence of, say, Jim Crow laws? 4) Finally, if we implemented fully free markets tomorrow, would not the inequalities of previous generations render the concept entirely untenable? The distribution of wealth in the world today is the result of historical processes of redistribution, be they through trade, progressive taxation or the legacy of imperialism. It seems this wouldn't be a level playing field - through no fault of their own, the majority of the participants in the race would be starting some distance to the rear.
permalink [] silas143 3 points 14 days ago

I'll offer an attempt at assessing these issues. 1. All just and moral people want the needs of the poor to be met, the old to live in comfort and for healthcare to be accessible. We just think the solution should be sustainable, which the state is not. We see how the state 'solving' problems like poverty produces opposite results every time but the solution is always more state power. We see a point coming soon when the state cannot afford to care of these people and can guarantee that it will cut front line services to the needy before it stops paying its members and friends. We wonder how these people will be helped then when there is a sudden huge need once the existing state help can't pay those bills and isn't there. The market won't 62 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

need once the existing state help can't pay those bills and isn't there. The market won't be ready and they will be hurt worse. Even if the people had the money to give to the charities there won't be an infrastructure in place that profits off giving advantages to the less privileged which means results will be inefficient and sparse. Market anarchists recognize that extending free market principles naturally changes the profit landscape of the economy. Services, education, goods and training for the poor will constitute a new market which will be competing to meet needs instead of competing in courts and lobbyist meetings. The market is either forcibly prevented from meeting these needs in a proactive rather than reactive manner by being legally bound by state power in varying degrees or reactionary, helpful entities never come to be because the state program creates the illusion of having solved the issue. 2. Is there equal access to the law under the statist paradigm? Can a single, harmed consumer really take on a massive corporation with scores of lawyers? It would be hard to argue yes. Massive amount of regulations and a labyrinthine legal system mean a corporate team can easily box a less monied opponent into a corner. In our system, nobody makes money off of providing open access to the law which would be reversed in a free market as competition drives down the price. 3. Would you eats at a restaurant that had 'no blacks' posted on the door? Would you be friends with someone who did? Would you do business with them, would it effect your economic decisions to associate with other businesses who supply the racist business? Jim Crow laws we enforced by the state, not the market. Who did bus lines and simple lunch counters have as customers at this period? The blacks who were being forced down into the lower class. Why would they cut out their main profit base? Someone could certainly try a racist business model but there's no way it will do anything but fail. 4. The feared scenario here isn't hypothetical, it's our current reality. The state is this awful monopoly, it makes profits for its members and intellectual property and copyright is one of these mechanisms, it pays for the enforcement of this with inflation and taxes from the people it is aggressing against, harming the least powerful, the poor and children, the worst. These kind of wide scale social injustices are what the statist structure facilitates in the creation of and at it's core Is itself. There is indeed a class war but it isn't upper versus lower, it is between those who obtain value through force and those who obtain it through voluntary association. Crime rates go up quite a bit once you factor in the crimes of the state. Not including them does not cease to make them crimes.
permalink parent

[] CanadianAnCap 5 points 14 days ago

1) Voluntary charity. For example someone who has no money, never bought health insurance, how will he get medical care? Most likely a doctor will take care of him for free, or a charity will pay the costs. Of course it's impossible to say for sure, but people are compassionate. There is also the tendancy for expansions of state power to come with a corresponding decrease in social power (Nock). The inverse is also true. 2) All interactions in Ruritania are voluntary. If you don't like the deal someone is offering you, don't interact with them. What sort of advantage are you referring to specifically? 3) The Jim Crow laws were, you know, passed by the state. But if a community of racists wanted to not trade with people of colour, that would be their right. This isn't a big deal - nor, I imagine, would a person of colour want to trade with a community of racists. In fact it would probably be for the best - let all the neo nazi's congregate in one filth infested area, the better that we can all avoid them. 4) Inherited wealth rarely lasts more than a generation. Historically, there has been absolutely no economic system that increases the standard of living not just for the elite but the poorest of the poor like laissez-faire capitalism (Friedman). So if your concern is how can we make the very poor less poor, perhaps it would be best to adopt the economic system that has best made this happen in the past.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply)

63 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


load more comments (1 reply) [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

If we hvae a state, who will take care of the victims of the state--peopel who are incarcerated for drug crimes, immigrants, brown people bombed by our drones, yellow people bombed by our nukes, people conscripted, women who have no right to vote or own property, etc.?
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] Cynicister 4 points 15 days ago

Lets say someone records (orchestra engineers ect) a cd album with 15 classical tracks and one original. Can she charge for full album price, with out having cyber nightmares?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 13 points 14 days ago

this seems to be a legal question; I prefer here to deal with economic and normative issues, rahher than dole out legal advice geared to the current statist system.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] morttheunbearable 3 points 14 days ago

You describe yourself as an "anarchist libertarian." How do you connect anarchy (based on no private property) and libertarianism (based completely on private property)? It would seem that they are incompatible ideologies.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 31 points 14 days ago

Anarchy means no state, not no private property. I am totally in favor of private property rights. I am a libertarian and pro-property and pro-justice and pro-property rights, and it is for this reason that I oppose the state, which necessarily invades property rights jsut by existing. see http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
permalink parent

load more comments (15 replies) [] honorkell 3 points 14 days ago

I'm a NJ law school grad who wrote an article about why the DMCA stifles innovation and should be abolished. I feel the same as you do towards current IP law. I've tried looking for jobs in the EFF and ACLU. How do I do what you do for a living?
permalink load more comments (2 replies) [] SECRETLY_STALKS_YOU 5 points 14 days ago

What's your favorite thing about bears?


permalink [] nskinsella [S] 8 points 14 days ago

Their arms. ;)
permalink parent [] SECRETLY_STALKS_YOU 3 points 14 days ago

And our rights to them.


permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] alexandliberty 4 points 14 days ago

As someone who's a free market anarchist/voluntarist/anarcho-capitalist/ or whatever moniker there is going around I've gotten heavy into the ethical approach of property rights. Hoppe's 64 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

there is going around I've gotten heavy into the ethical approach of property rights. Hoppe's argumentation ethics is an amazing approach for an axiomatic approach to property rights. My question is how do we go about explaining this type of approach to those that aren't familiar with logic and ethics?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 1 point 14 days ago

normal people are easier to reach in my experience; they already accept intuitively basic common sense morals. you just add a bit of economic literacy and build on those.
permalink parent [] Ehsaun 5 points 14 days ago

Will we see a more libertarian government in our lifetime?


permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

not sure. maybe. but despite the state, not because of it; and not because of electoral politics or activism.
permalink parent [] huffyjumper 5 points 14 days ago

Is it true that Keynesian climb trees while Austrians hide under rocks?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 15 points 14 days ago

yes.
permalink parent [] BlerpityBloop 2 points 15 days ago

If patents did not exist, how would you encourage private industry to research and invest in new technology? An example: a pharmaceutical company spends $500 Million dollars to research, test, market and manufacture a cure for arthritis. What would be their incentive to do this if once developed anyone can manufacture it, almost completely erasing their ability to recoup this investment?
permalink [] jscoppe 12 points 15 days ago

A lot of that R&D cost is inflated by excessive FDA regs.


permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 19 points 14 days ago

Exactly. To encourage innovation, get the state out of the way: eliminate or reduce taxes, regulations, etc., and innovation will thrive.
permalink parent [] Samuraijubei 4 points 14 days ago

Out of curiosity, how in depth is your knowledge of the FDA regulations for the testing of medical products, machinery, and surgical procedures?
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (6 replies) [] nskinsella [S] 18 points 14 days ago

it's not my job to encourage people. nor the state's. the state's only job is to commit suicide, or, so long as it exists, to protect property rights. There are no property rihgts in value, profits, intangibles.
permalink parent

load more comments (9 replies)

65 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

load more comments (9 replies) [] tlazolteotl 4 points 15 days ago

What about something like a drug company? The company may spend decades and millions on research and jumping through legal hoops to produce something that, while effective, is ultimately not that complex. If a competitor got access to the chemical formula or procedure for making such a drug, wouldn't they have an immediate advantage because they don't carry the burden of sunk R&D costs? Thanks for doing this!
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 13 points 14 days ago

they spend millions and decades, partly b/c of state regulations like the FDA. The enemy of innovation is the state; it and its regulations shoul be eliminated; to trust the evil state that harms business, to help it out by passing more regulations and granting anti-competitive protectionist monopoly privileges is insane. the state is the enemy.
permalink parent [] T-Rax 2 points 14 days ago

Let me put this counterpoint as crass as i can: "Maybe your mother should have taken some Thalidomide to help with morning sickness while pregnant with you?"
permalink parent [] pagodapagoda 2 points 14 days ago

FUCKING THANK YOU OH MY GOD THIS AMA IS MAKING MY GODDAMN EYES BLEED
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] probablyreasonable 3 points 14 days ago

'Evil State' and 'enemy' are repeated over and over through this AMA. It is difficult to take your argument of abolishing well-established legal precedents by presupposing the administration of law and motivation of law is evil.
permalink parent [] CanadianAnCap 3 points 14 days ago

The state, unlike all other organizations in society, obtains it's revenue through coercion. Pay your taxes or we will hurt you, even kill you if you resist. If it is not evil to threaten another with violence even murder in order to make money, then what is evil?
permalink parent [] relaytheurgency 2 points 14 days ago

Who has been killed for tax evasion? Are you serious?
permalink parent

load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (27 replies) load more comments (9 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [] stabsthedrama 6 points 14 days ago*

So, you're more in favor of a stronger advertisement base for someone's product they just invented, or what? An individual can only do so much with a product before he is swept away by a bigger corporation.... How could someone with a great idea and limited funds ever compete with something like Walmart or Johnson and Johnson, etc. simply stealing your idea and mass producing it? I'm no economist, but I can't imagine what a world would be like that you apparently favor? It seems like it would just be nothing but a select few mega-corporations and merger after merger, 66 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

seems like it would just be nothing but a select few mega-corporations and merger after merger, no? How could this be what anyone would want? I think anyone in the world can agree it needs reform, but to totally do away with patents? It would be total anarchy.....oh wait, I get it now...
permalink load more comments (8 replies) [] cynoclast 4 points 14 days ago

Intellectual property is just lawyerese for imaginary property. The fact that anyone countenances the term saddens me deeply. It's a trite attempt to assert ownership over something that defies ownership for the purpose of enriching people who can afford lawyers to extract money from other people for them.
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] ReasonThusLiberty 2 points 14 days ago

Great to have you on here! I highly appreciate your work on IP. Is there a case to be made for property abandonment? I think that a case for propertarian abandonment can be made if it can be proven that an owner had no intent to use a piece of property in the long-term.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

I disagree with left-libertarian and mutualst ideas on property abandonmet -http://archive.mises.org/10386/a-critique-of-mutualist-occupancy/


permalink parent [] ReasonThusLiberty 4 points 14 days ago

I, too, disagree with usufruct. It destroys both capital ownership and speculation. However, if there is a clear indication that a person does not ever intend to use property (not even for speculative purposes), couldn't the case be made that it is abandoned? Please feel free to just say "no" or "yes" and give me a bunch of links. I would be most grateful. I appreciate your work!
permalink parent [] homo-insurgo 2 points 14 days ago

As an introverted libertarian, shy and not quite charismatic, what strategies do you think I could pursue to bring us closer to a non-statist world? (Running for office, for instance, is out of question because of the aforementioned 'qualities'; the same goes with being an educator in real life.)
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

The power of attraction. http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/01/08/one-improved-unit/


permalink parent [] tukarjerbs 1 point 14 days ago

it destroys incentives. If you spend millions developing something then have someone copy your work for free and make money off of it, they are able to sell it for a whole lot less than you would be able to recoup the costs of development. In theory it sounds all nice and fancy, like communism, but in practice....
permalink [] arbivark 3 points 14 days ago

i am a libertarian anarchist lawyer (JD mizzou '93.) currently retired/unemployed/doing something else. is there a good way to network with other Libertarian lawyers?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

67 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


[] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

I haven't found one, to be honest.


permalink parent [] Xelda 2 points 14 days ago

Don't you find it interesting that you look somewhat like Stefan Molyneux (or he looks like you) and have the same first name (albeit with a different spelling) and are both Anarchist? Are you 2 some kind of anarchist clones?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 6 points 14 days ago

Yes, it is interesting, but not sure what deeper implications there are.
permalink parent [] Xelda 5 points 14 days ago

Cosmic coincidence I guess.


permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] evolutionaryflow 1 point 14 days ago

doesnt abolishing patent rights completely destroy American social mobility? Large established companies with lots of capital and manufacturing capabilities will always have an advantage over the average joe entrepreneur with a great idea but little capital and equipment.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 8 points 14 days ago

no; patents have nothing to do with mobility; in fact it is state policies that hamper mobility: e.g. by tying employee benefits like medical care etc. to the employer, which makes no sense, and by centralizing corporate crapitalist power.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] AssholeinSpanish 1 point 14 days ago

What is the role of the State? Is the state obliged to advance utilitarian goals? To provide services for its participants? You have mentioned repeatedly that its is not the law's responsibility to encourage behavior like innovation, but why is this a bad thing? Is it only bad because it infringes upon property rights and relies on coercion via taxation? Can it be said that such laws create an indirect benefit to all members of society? And that the State forces (in some instances) uniformity that leads to greater effiencies than would be seen in a completely free and unregulated market? Do you believe that the state's taking outweighs these effiencies?
permalink load more comments (9 replies) [] French87 1 point 14 days ago

OMG We have the same first name!!@#!! Sorry but I've never met anyone with the same first name as me. So like, hi and stuff.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

Hello, my brother from another mother.


permalink parent [] the__funk 3 points 14 days ago

This whole scenario sounds so unbelievably stupid or a good plot for a sci-fi movie... 68 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

This whole scenario sounds so unbelievably stupid or a good plot for a sci-fi movie... Ok, let's say this; a person develops new technology. No patents, larger company wipes him out of the market. Incentive to innovate now only exists to those trying to sell ideas to companies(which would be impossible, because as soon as they showed the idea the company could steal it) and those working for the larger companies. Small business's which used to use innovation as their edge in a competitive market do not exist because only size and money matter now. Those larger companies now use their investments to gain intelligence and steal patents. Industries essentially pay for computer hackers, recon teams, moles into other companies, and additional security. Basically corporate espionage is a large(and in house ) business, small private companies have all ceased to exist now. Industry giants battle a cold war for controls on industry monopolies. Consider this a prelude, fastforward to present day. Orwellian obedience to several large firms is all that exists now. Governments have long become powerless in comparison to the industrial giants which now control the world. Everyday workers go to work, no motivation exists hold what the company has decided to provide as motivation. They know nothing of small enterprise or individual rights to intellectual property, their corporation owns everything they say, do or think. A rogue group of security experts live on the fringe, selling secrets between companies to the highest bidder. "Government extortion" of using peoples intellectual property has failed, they use the older ways of extortion... TL;DR - Anarchy removes all motivation from the individual, corporations grow larger, big eat small, big get bigger, biggest eats bigger. Workers become something closer to slaves, espionage becomes a huge business until there is no new ideas left to steal.
permalink load more comments (5 replies) [] XIllusions 4 points 14 days ago

Reading OP comments, he says that the free market gives anyone the right to compete without regard to the original innovator. That's a moral call, so that's fair enough. The argument, however, is that no one can steal your idea, only compete for the money of those willing to pay for it. And a law should not control who gets money. That's a purely semantic game. Yes, technically you do not lose the idea if someone copies it - but realistically you do. This isn't early human history. An idea can literally be shared, copied and sold across the world in seconds now. Would supporters of OP's system agree that this would ultimately lead to entire businesses that specialize in searching for ideas and beating out the inventor? All have better production, distribution and marketing. Similar companies crop up, keeping the cost from rising from monopolies - sure. But now the inventor has for all intents and purposes, lost his ability to compete. It's an absurdity that an inventor cannot profit from his own idea. It just isn't FAIR. OP would respond to that by saying stop whining it isn't about fairness, but it's a moral call to begin with. Fine. You don't see the law as something that should guard this kind of thing, but I doubt very many people who innovate would agree with you. Government exists to serve fairness just as much as it does other functions. Granted there are special interests and imperfections, but that doesn't mean you destroy the system. You fix it and stop the abuses -- which takes an annoying amount of time, but that's reality. What OP proposes seems really childish. Schoolyard rules. Can someone argue that this isn't a simple preference choice like most of politics? There is no empirically correct choice here. So it's majority rules. And a majority the libertarians are not.
permalink [] JesseForgione 2 points 14 days ago

"Would supporters of OP's system agree that this would ultimately lead to entire businesses that specialize in searching for ideas and beating out the inventor?" And if you were one of these people searching out new ideas, how would you do it? Would you hire spies to peek in people's windows or hack their computers to see if they happen to be 69 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

hire spies to peek in people's windows or hack their computers to see if they happen to be inventing something? Of course not. You'd either offer cash for new ideas, or hire inventors/designers/etc. to come up with them. Also, libertarianism is not just an arbitrary preference. Civilization, to the extent to which we have it, is based on non-aggression. That is, we agree to interact on a peaceful, mutually voluntary basis, instead of initiating physical force. This principle of non-aggression is what allows for cooperation, the division of labor, market price-coordination, and all the other benefits of human society. Libertarianism is the consistent application of this basic principle of civilization. Inasmuch as it is violated, society and the market are thrown into violence, discoordination, and chaos.
permalink parent [] XIllusions 3 points 13 days ago

You'd either offer cash for new ideas, or hire inventors/designers/etc. to come up with them. You are assuming that, for one. There are countless models of making money off of other people's ideas. You can't depend on non-aggression to keep the unfair ones out. That isn't how business works. People are very, very clever when it comes to making money. And amoral. You think corporate espionage isn't a viable model? Fine, I can just open up a product catalog. Companies can even hire research companies that do nothing but collect data about the most successful products and then limit their catalog to them. They now have the same products at lower cost to them. Hell, I can record every song from Spotify and sell them as I chose. I believe what happens in the system being described is that the inventor is crippled by an entity that benefits without the risk (they don't pay for 10 ideas and get only 1 successful one). The industry most downstream for any given product becomes top dog. I'm not even attacking libertarian philosophy. I'm saying it's a choice, not a clearly superior/inferior, factually supported option.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (5 replies) [] homo-insurgo 4 points 15 days ago

A word of caution: most users on this website know little Logic, Economics, History and Philosophy, so don't be surprised if they advocate bankrupt, false, absurd, reality-adverse philosophies(e.g., socialism).
permalink [] gibbon_with_a_ribbon 4 points 14 days ago

I am sympathetic towards libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theories but it is exactly this sort of attitude that makes the movement look like, to people who are unfamiliar with the position and the arguments, a bunch of condescending douchebags. Well done on setting your own cause back. Stick to explaining why you're right instead of why your opponent is wrong and you can go much further.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

I'm starting to see this.


permalink parent [] jscoppe 8 points 14 days ago

Come visit us in /r/anarcho_capitalism sometime! We are likely going to be more your speed.
permalink parent

70 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] throwaway-o 3 points 14 days ago

You are invited to post anything to /r/AgainstAllArchons and /r/anarchocapitalism. And don't forget your invitation to join us at /r/DeclineToState.
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] mangostache 2 points 14 days ago

For the sake of argument, isn't Anarcho-Capitalism also relatively utopian?


permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 7 points 14 days ago

are you against rape? Even though you don't htink we will easily or ever achieve a world without rape? I am too. It is not utopian to be oppposed to bad things. It does not mean you expect to achieve it. Anarchy just means you think the state commits aggression and you oppose it too. see http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (6 replies) [] Jivanmukta 3 points 14 days ago

Would you sue me if I copied your books and sold them as my own?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

Nope. I would not mind if you looked like an idiot. see http://c4sif.org/2013/01/on-ip-hypocrisyand-calling-the-smartasses-bluffs/
permalink parent [] ChefThirteen 2 points 15 days ago

Question: What is your opinion of MMT? Question: Why can't Austrian economics get published in peer reviewed journals? Question: Have you read Heinlein's For Us, the Living? The other bonus is another gift to us. The money earned by this novel will be going to directly and substantially support Heinlein's dream, and the dream we, Heinlein's Children, share. Earnings will be going to the advancement of human exploration of space. When you purchase "For Us, the Living" you are also contributing, in a real and meaningful way, the furtherment of this dream. Yet again, Heinlein 'pays it forward.'
permalink load more comments (9 replies) [] Salacious- 1 point 14 days ago

How do you feel about the Gold Standard?


permalink [] conn2005 4 points 14 days ago

The gold standard is popular among libertarians and Austrian Economists, but AnarchoCapitalists support competitive free market currencies.
permalink parent [] nskinsella [S] 12 points 14 days ago

I'm for a free market in money, whatever results, whether it be a hard money standard or bitcoin.
permalink parent

load more comments (15 replies) [] likeanyother 0 points 14 days ago*

71 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...


[] likeanyother 0 points 14 days ago*

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

While I totally support you it might be difficult to do this in practice. proposed roadmap: 2013 not ratify the unitary patent 2014 reforming InfoSoc Directive (EU), abolish and reform certain IPR 2015-2020 begin the disassemble WIPO by replacing paris convention, rbu, trips and such with a treaty which focuses on the needs of developing countries (india, brazil), this treaty must be full of constructive clauses allowing countries to opt out of IPR. Then, one by one, countries may opt out. cuba, venezuela and peru being the first ;) as the 'first world' does not have a majority and barely paid developing countries to agree on trips, further development or enforcement of IPR was not agreed on. with the current dynamic in the european states (rejecting ACTA) we might be able to pull this off. So, are you with me? EDIT: i suspect you have communicated your opinion to DG Markt, but for all the other people: they have a questionnaire regarding intellectual property and are asking citizens for their opinion http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/trade-secrets_en.htm
permalink [] DeismAccountant 1 point 14 days ago

As a fellow left leaning Rothbardian, I am exploring the advantages of collective banking and credit unions as an alternative to government funding of schools and roads. Your thoughts?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

not my bailiwick
permalink parent

load more comments (14 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [] ichormusic 1 point 14 days ago

Stephan, I recently watched a documentary called "The Invisible War". This movie shed light on how big of a problem rape and sexual harassment is in the military. One of the worst parts of it is the lack of action taken when someone is accused of rape or harassment. These soldiers signed up with honorable intentions, under the assumption that they were "protecting our country and our liberties". When raped, and no action is taken (the majority of the time), they are left with 4 options: suck it up, "write a letter to their congressman (wtf)", go AWOL, or suicide. They signed a contract when they enlisted. Is it immoral for them to break that contract to get out? Legislation also states that no member of the military may sue the military for any purpose, be it amputating the wrong leg, standing idle while their superiors are raping them, etc... If you sign up for a contract, is that the final say so?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

it is not immoral to break such a contract, as the other party is just a big mafya.
permalink parent

load more comments (2 replies) [] nobody25864 1 point 14 days ago

Can trademarks be justified since pretending to be someone you're not (or representing a group you don't) may be considered fraud?
permalink load more comments (3 replies) [] [deleted] 14 days ago*

[deleted]
permalink

72 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

[] nskinsella [S] 13 points 14 days ago

no one can steal an idea. I have explained this already. I'm not right wing--I am for gay marriage, against drug laws, against war, what are you talking about?
permalink parent [] PublicAccount1234 0 points 14 days ago

Steve, people will come Steve. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Steve. The one constant through all the years, Steve, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Steve. People will most definitely come.
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] nozickian 2 points 14 days ago

Referencing this blog post of yours and in the comment section where you go back and forth with Tim Lee, you both agree that one's IP views should have nothing to do with the choice to use or not use free software. Do you not think it is a good idea for anti-IP libertarians to support the use of software that uses the least restrictive licenses possible? Isn't it advantageous for IP opponents that MIT and BSD licensed software succeed because it helps to demonstrate that copyright isn't necessary and even harms software production?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

I don't have a strong opiion on what kind of software you should use, but I Do think you should, if you can, publish artistic and literary works CC-BY.
permalink parent [] argoff 1 point 14 days ago

I agree with you on patent, copyright, but could you elaborate on trademarks, and trade secrets. If some guy claims to have written "Gone With the Wind", and is selling these copies to people all over the place claiming to be an author. Is not he acting like a fraud? Isn't it just to come along and shut him down, because he is perpetuating fraud? Also, same with trade secrets. If a person agrees to not spill the beans, but does, shouldn't he be held accountable? Also, don't you think that being a patent attorney who is against IP is the definition of a crazy person ;)
permalink load more comments (2 replies) [] donjuancho 1 point 14 days ago

Why does the Von Mises institute and many Austrian economists shun David Friedman?
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] pbandjs 2 points 14 days ago

My major issue with abolishing patent and copyright law rather than reform is the idea that an identical product manufactured by another entity is a competitor to the original. If the product is the same, then the only competition is that of a name and initial capital available 73 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

If the product is the same, then the only competition is that of a name and initial capital available for a market push.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

so what. competition is good.


permalink parent

load more comments (11 replies) [] ragequitan 1 point 14 days ago

1. How does the free market address consumer and worker protection? State and Federal law protects the average worker and consumer from corporate maleficence. I've heard the common 'you can sue them' argument, but that's not really a recourse if I end up dead. 2. How does the free market address the formation of monopolies or extremely large conglomerates? You suggest that products will be amply available, but whats preventing these conglomerates from just edging them out of the market or absorbing them with their overwhelming capital?
permalink [] pallieterke 2 points 14 days ago*

Imagine pharmaceutical companies who are already working under a reduced "patent time" due to the fact it takes longer and longer to put a new drug on the market. The time between the patent being filled and FDA approval, being when they can start to sell has increased to more than 12 years. Well of course the pharmaceutical companies have found a few tricks to still be the only one producing even after the patent expired. You see the fabrication cost of a pharmaceutical company is only 15% of their cost. Most is research and marketing. So those smart bastards just make sure the FDA approval consist of extremely complicated and expensive manufacturing procedures which have to be validated for every other producer. This means for example that the cost to start producing a (generic) vaccine is 100s of millions. And this again for any other vaccine. Result, everything becomes more expensive and medication that would only help a minority is no longer possible to produce due to the extreme regulations pushed by the big companies to chrush the little ones. There are cases where I can understand copyright has become absurd, but abolish it completely you will only hurt the consumer and the small companies.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

so the state imposes delays and costs on companies, and this justifies more state intrusions into the free market? no sir.
permalink parent

load more comments (3 replies) [] Sluisifer 2 points 14 days ago

How is research and development incentivised in a market without IP? Do you believe in gov't funding for public research?
permalink load more comments (2 replies) [] [deleted] 14 days ago

[deleted]
permalink load more comments (1 reply) [] donjuancho 2 points 14 days ago

According to the contract theory of property, can there be a contract for almost anything? As long as it is specified that if the contract is broken, then you are entitled to some form of property from the other person? Would this not include NDAs and copyrights, if people agreed to the contract? 74 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

other person? Would this not include NDAs and copyrights, if people agreed to the contract?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

contracts are just owners of scarce resources transferring that ownership, usually conditionally, to someone else. It's the exercise of the power of ownership. As logn as you communicate a clearly objective and determinable condition for the transfer, it should be effective.
permalink parent [] UncleSeth 0 points 14 days ago

Would you rather fight one horse sized duck, or 100 duck sized horses?
permalink [] moratnz 1 point 14 days ago

As a libertarian economist, are you against limitation of liabilities for corporations (/business entities in general)? If so, how would you deal with liability sinks like a terminally ill person taking on a liability in return for a cash payment they can passon to family? If not, how would you deal with businesses externalising costs?
permalink load more comments (2 replies) [] losthours 2 points 14 days ago

ok so lets say im a middle class inventor and i come up with super awesome product A... whats to keep a massive company from just taking my idea and making their own without the protection that patents provide?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

they can't take your idea. you tstill have it. but sure, others can compete with you if they see you selling a popular product. that's called "the free market"
permalink parent

load more comments (9 replies) [] Droidsexual 2 points 14 days ago

Should a company still be able to own a name? I mean if I start "Droidsexual's Automobiles" with a new kind of engine, but then big company called "Poopball's Automobiles" makes the same kind of car, should I be able to change my company's name to "Poopball's Automobiles" and pretend to be them to mooch of their established brand? Also should I be able to create money? I mean money can exist only as digital information so if I copy money I haven't actually stolen anything I have simply copied it.
permalink load more comments (3 replies) [] fixeroftoys 2 points 14 days ago

Thank you for this AMA! Aside from copyright and patents, how do you feel about trademarks? Is there room for trademark protection, and can you explain?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

No, I think if you have fraud law that's sufficient. the rest of trademark is unjust: it's used to bully, intimindate, censor speech, stop real competition, and it has unjust aspects: 1. it is federal in the US, though it is not authorized in the Constitution; 2. the cause of action lies in the trademark holder, instaed of in the defrauded customer; 3. it can be used in many cases where there is no consumer confusion at all, e.g. if you buy a fake Luis Vuitton purse; 4. it has the anti-dilution cause of action which has nothing to do with fraud or consumer confusion. It is a mess. Get rid of it.
permalink parent

75 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

load more comments (1 reply) [] iambinarymind 2 points 14 days ago

Do you feel that having been adopted has had any causal impact on you becoming an anarcholibertarian? I ask because I too am adopted (1 month after I was born) and I too would describe myself as an anarcho-libertarian.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 5 points 14 days ago

possibly. I allude to this here http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella9.html. I think it made me more individualist and less tribalist/collectivist, more ripe for being influenced by Ayn Rand, which led to libertarianism
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] buffalo_pete 2 points 14 days ago

Many libertarians are pretty quickly sold on the idea of patent abolition; once it's broken down it's obviously a collection of monopoly privileges. I think it's an easy argument to make, but copyright's always been more difficult for me to wrap my head around. On the surface, it seems to a protection against fraud (claiming you are someone else or someone else's work is your own). So my question is: How would you respond to a libertarian defense of copyright as protection against fraud? Thanks in advance.
permalink load more comments (3 replies) [] Lingulist 1 point 14 days ago

In all balance I have to say that I find your idea about the abolishment of patents intriguing and it's worth a deeper thought. I just think it's just economically impossible. I would like to know how you find yourself to work as a lawyer since you're an anarchist. Is there no contradiction in that?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

I see no contradiction -- any more than a libertarian who is a tax attorney defending victims of the state or an oncologist who makes money by fighting cancer. http://c4sif.org/2012/04 /patent-lawyers-who-dont-toe-the-line-should-be-punished/
permalink parent [] jon31494 2 points 14 days ago

What arguments do you have against Mutualism? And are you "pro-free market" or are you "pro-capitalist free market"?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

the view that if you are not present in your property you can lose title to it, by the tenants or employees squatting on it; this view disregards contractual freedom and it dishonesntly squeezes this view into "abandonment" theory, which is wrong
permalink parent

load more comments (1 reply) [] Beard_of_Valor 2 points 14 days ago

Do you expect that in an economy of your devising, services would be comparatively more expensive relative to goods than they are in our present-day US economy? I feel like the free market drives the cost of goods down approaching manufacture cost, but people will always expect to be paid for their work, and so the costs for services will not experience the same drop. 76 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

same drop. If you have time for two questions, in a (non-?)government of your devising how would medicine be able to continue to operate and advance? Considering the overwhelming cost of surgery I wonder if the "market" might dry up due to being priced out of potential customers' reach.
permalink load more comments (3 replies) [] Timthetiny 2 points 14 days ago

I see much of this thread is about "ideas" as opposed to actual manufactured goods. Tell me, if anyone can copy anyone, where is Exxon's motivation to sink tens or hundreds of billions of dollars into drilling and research techniques. Some of the proprietary materials and techniques cost hundreds of billions and decades to develop. Where is Intel's, or Apple's motivation to sink tens of billions into research and development, and the building of physical fabrication space, the hiring of engineers if qualcomm,arm, or Google can just piggyback off of that and reap the rewards with no cost? its great for rabble rousing, but you instantly scare money out of investment, because no one can any longer define the value/risk of capital expenditures and R&D, time to market, or anything else. Your premise seems to rely on fools who are willing to be exploited by others who possess no scruple.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

Why is your question about motivations, and your musings about what my premises "seem to be" suposed to be an argument for state grants of anti-competitive monopoly privilege?
permalink parent [] galacticparadox 2 points 14 days ago

What do you think of the "holdout problem" and what are your thoughts on eminent domain?
permalink load more comments (2 replies) [] bandholz 2 points 14 days ago

Damn, I'm really bummed I missed this. If you are still around Stephan I've got a question I'd love your input on. I am a voluntaryist / ancap and share your views on IP. That being said, I am also an entrepreneur and businessman. A lot of my peers acquire trademarks / patents "for defense." There are a lot of pressures especially in the startup world to own patents. From a practical standpoint, does it make sense to invest in trademarks / patents even when it's against your core beliefs?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 7 points 14 days ago

In today's world: given IP: first, yes, you need to get trademarks. there is no reason to have to use them aggressively. And though it's an unfortunate waste of money (to the tune of $10k-$20k per patent), some companies need to acquire patents to build up a portfolio to use defensively. I think the the best moral strategy for the libertarian entrepreneur is to commit or decide not to ever use patents aggressively, but to be ready to use them defensively if need be.
permalink parent [] PresidentCleveland 2 points 14 days ago

I'm not quite sure if this is an question you want to answer, or could. I'll sum it up as, would a private system of IP work? A system in which we trade information, through crypto, for exchange of both money, and the ability to punish the other if they release the material. This is an idea I've been thinking about for quite some time, but haven't quite gotten the details down. I'll try to explain it so I don't sound like an idiot(which I am...) Soon, everything will be 3d printable. So "selling" something will just be giving them needed information. So you send it to them encrypted, and they "buy" the decryption key from you, rather then the product. But buying it is both an exchange of money, and the decryption keys that person uses for their own information. 77 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

is both an exchange of money, and the decryption keys that person uses for their own information. If they person releasing the product to the general populous, then you can release their decryption keys, so they can no longer produce things privately yet. As you can see, that's is a super rough idea, but its the start of what I believe will be the future system of private ip. Now I just have to learn everything about public key encryption to figure out how it will work exactly. I'm a libertarian/anarchist as well, I think IP is wrong just because of how violent the state is at enforcing it. The piratebay founders are just skinny little computer nerds(nothing wrong with that of course), but they went to the same jail as actually criminal. Bradly Manning did something similar, and has basically been tortured for the last two years. So I think IP is wrong, but what is worse is the way its punished. So a system that lets artists share content, with out fear of getting nothing in return, and is totally voluntary, would be best. Have you ever thought about a system of private IP, and/or do you know anyone else who has written about it?
permalink load more comments (3 replies) [] pjwaffle 2 points 14 days ago

I don't know much about you in particular, so I'll just ask my generic "cool libertarian anarchist celebrity" question. What do you think of agorism? If the government says you can't do something that isn't inherently immoral (NAP violating, I guess) and you have determined that the profit of doing said thing exceeds the cost of doing said thing (with risk taken into account too), is it "okay" to do? (feel free to word this in a way that doesn't say "go out and break the law now!", although I'd still like to get your honest opinion on it) EDIT: the cost/risk equation, of course, includes likelihood of imprisonment/fine, etc. not just "natural" consequences, but also the approximate likelihood of State-driven consequences.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 2 points 14 days ago

I like agorism, and Konkin, etc. ,but am pessimisitc. It's "okay" to do anything that does not trespass on others' property borders, regardless of the state's diktats.
permalink parent [] puddinchop1 2 points 14 days ago

Do you believe that homesteading is the only method of acquisition of property (initially, transfer exists as well)? If so, why is this? If not, why not?
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

There are three methods of acquiring property. 1, in the case of bodies, by becoming sapient. 2. in the case of external resources that were at one point previously unowned, by original appropriation, or homesteading, or 3. contractual acquisition from a previous owner. These are the only 3 ways b/c it exhausts all possibilities.
permalink parent [] yelloueze 1 point 14 days ago

Do you actually believe that it is more acceptable to kill socialists than other people? I also do not think your update to that post still repudiates that statement.
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 4 points 14 days ago

I don't think murder is justified at all. I prefer peace and persuasion. It is socialists who believe in breaking a few eggs to make an omelet, in killing millions of people while pretending to be humanitarians.
permalink parent

load more comments (6 replies) [] DSingh28 2 points 14 days ago

I'm not sure whether or not anyone has asked you this already but why the hell do you hate intellectual property rights and capitalism I mean it makes sense that you haw monopolies but here 78 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella...

intellectual property rights and capitalism I mean it makes sense that you haw monopolies but here in America that's not possible
permalink [] nskinsella [S] 3 points 14 days ago

I love capitalism, but dislike IP b/c I think it is contrary thereto.


permalink parent

load more comments (347 replies)

79 of 79

2/6/2013 6:21 PM

You might also like