Libertarian VP Candidate... Patent Hoarder?
from the please-explain dept
I don't consider myself to be a libertarian, though I tend to agree with libertarians on many policy issues (to be clear: I don't consider myself anything politically -- not even the dreaded "independent"). However, the split among libertarians over intellectual property rights fascinates me. There is a large group of libertarians who are against intellectual property rights (or, at least in favor of weakening them drastically). And then there's another camp that are very much in favor of intellectual property rights (and for making them much stronger). It's one issue where there's a huge split. The reasoning is pretty straightforward. Libertarians are big property rights supporters. Those who think IP is real property tend to be supporters of the system. Those who realize it's not at all like regular property have problems with the system. See Stephen Kinsella's presentation for a good overview on why intellectual property, such as patents and copyright, does not seem to match up with libertarian philosophy.However, don't tell that to the guy running on the Libertarian Party ticket for the Vice President slot, Wayne Root. Tim Lee points out that Root appears to be your garden variety patent hoarder who has been successfully forcing a bunch of online sports betting websites to pay up over a patent that seems to very broadly cover an online prediction market (a concept that has been both talked about and been around for quite some time). Not that the party has even the slightest chance of getting anywhere, but I guess it's safe to assume that the Libertarian Party's platform won't have much about patent system reform this year.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: libertarians, patents, wayne root
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike is not a libertarian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is not a libertarian
Mike and his supporters has been pigeonholed far too many time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most political parties are bad anyways. One should vote based on merit and issues and on the beliefs of the candidate, and his advisors.
Or hers, though personally I think Clinton could be as damaging as McCain so I am glad she's not a candidate for presendency. Mixed feelings on her being VP given that she seemed more selfish than anything in staying in the race for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You probably have never voted in a presidential election, there are literally dozens of parties. Remember Ross Perot and the Reform Party? Libertarian party, socialist party, green party, and so on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hayek
One of the most proheminent libertarian around, Hayek, wrote without ambiguity on "intellectual" property:
""" Just to illustrate how great out ignorance of the optimum forms of delimitation of various rights remains - despite our confidence in the indispensability of the general institution of several property - a few remarks about one particuilar form of property may be made. [...]
The difference between these and other kinds of property rights is this: while ownership of material goods guides the user of scarce means to their most important uses, in the case of immaterial goods such as literary productions and technological inventions the ability to produce them is also limited, yet once they have come into existence, they can be indefinitely multiplied and can be made scarce only by law in order to create an inducement to produce such ideas. Yet it is not obvious that such forced scarcity is the most effective way to stimulate the human creative process. I doubt whether there exists a single great work of literature which we would not possess had the author been unable to obtain an exclusive copyright for it; it seems to me that the case for copyright must rest almost entirely on the circumstance that such exceedingly useful works as encyclopaedias, dictionaries, textbooks and other works of reference could not be produced if, once they existed, they could freely be reproduced.
Similarly, recurrent re-examinations of the problem have not demonstrated that the obtainability of patents of invention actually enhances the flow of new technical knowledge rather than leading to wasteful concentration of research on problems whose solution in the near future can be foreseen and where, in consequence of the law, anyone who hits upon a solution a moment before the next gains the right to its exclusive use for a prolonged period.
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, 1988 (p. 35) Friedrich von Hayek"""
I guess that just about half of the libertarians are just hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hayek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hayek
Now you have done it...once again the "Italy" example re pharma may be raised as an answer to your question. Of course, no one raising this example has ever peeled back the layers of the onion to examine the details of what was actually being developed in Italy pre-1978.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hayek
Why the Italy example? Why not the Netherlands? Or Switzerland? Or Petra Moser's study. All of which point to plenty of innovation without patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hayek
Study of "stuff" from World Fairs in the 1800's and early 1900's are an interesting trip down memory lane, but the inventions she focuses on demonstrate she is not particularly familiar with how businesses go about determining what to protect and what not to protect. She is right on trade secrets being an important factor, but then that is hardly a revelation. As for patents, there is nothing in her paper (actually several papers) that in any way suggests she has a firm grasp of even the most basic aspects of patent law. I simply do not see how one can draw principled conclusions concerning the pros/cons of patents if one is not firmly grounded in what this body of law entails.
I only mentioned Italy because it was discussed extensively by Levine et al. in at least one of their papers. Unfortunately, their paper did not delve into the particulars of what was being "offered up" by pharma in Italy pre-1978. Information I have received from persons familiar with the Italian pharma industry is to the effect it was not in any significant manner involved in the invention, development and production of drugs for medical use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double dare
Look at the background of these characters knocking on the White House door. Were Washington clean, these men wouldn't dare belong.
Two:
Michael is a treasure, muckraker extraordinaire. Day after day, he thumps corruption and distills obfuscation until even I can understand the issues.
Kudos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mke & Libertarians
---most people don't know much about the history of technology, anyhow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike & Libertarians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarian Schism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libertarian Schism
The privileges of copyright and patent conflict with intellectual property rights - and as you astutely observe, for libertarians who've confused privilege as right 'end up trampling on their own concept of "freedom"'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enforce, forbid, treat, ;
But I am not here for winning nor order nor compliance nor to give more than we agree to trade. Each is just domain earned in blood. I'm saying that once myself, Constitution willing, I am precious under law, given all rights another, torn not by freedom but by treachery, and part of our American treasure. Screw any threat or seduction try to take any part of this.
Mike always, it reads to me, argues for solvent parties, as if we are, and warns us not to be less, even if forced, and never fooled.
I don't think what's been done by those before us we can't give to those after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: enforce, forbid, treat, ;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I might care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Rights vs Privileges
Privileges such as copyright and patent suspend other people's rights (such as their liberty and privacy) in order to reward a favoured class (merchants with the reward of a monopoly).
Thus a libertarian is against intellectual property privileges (copyright and patent) and in favour of intellectual property rights (life, privacy, truth, liberty).
When privileged people pretend their privileges are rights, then everyone starts getting confused as to whether they're for or against 'rights', and consequently confused as to whether they are a libertarian...
"I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Rights vs Privileges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol, you mean a second one? Anyone seriously think the dems and repubs are really different?
Just a different set of lies - but none of them follow through with any of their promises. Think the Dems will pull us out of Iraq? Seriously - the dem congress hasn't.
Although, I can see McCain winning this time - taking 4 years to clean up the war and then Hillary running again, with Obama as VP. Maybe I'm cynical - but I think that's the plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there are only two parties
if you want to see your cause succeed it would be better to throw your money into a lobbying outfit since money is the only force of political change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: there are only two parties
-Ben Franklin
Why would I vote for either major party when neither major party represents my values? You say voting third-party is a wasted vote, but voting for people I don't like just because they belong to a bigger political party is retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: there are only two parties
**
(vote Cthulu when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: there are only two parties
that's just retarded.
you can't rig elections if people can make secondary and tertiary votes. you can't buy elections with PR campaigns if people can make multiple choices. also, news organizations can't offer real time coverage of elections if there are multiple parties and multiple votes that have to be tallied. think of all that lost advertising revenue. whole industries have been built around there only being two very predictible parties and two overall philosophies, do you want those industries to go under?
a lot of time and money has been invested in gerrymandering the country in to a two party system so that's not going to be undone in this or any other lifetime.
you have plenty of choice, each election features two criminals who tell very well crafted lies based on focus groups, opinion polls, and consultants of all kinds. a lot of money had been spent on those lies, the least you can do is believe one of them.
the system is simple: just choose which lies you want to be disappointed by after the election and then play along and act surprised when the winner fails to deliver on them. the system works if we all do our part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: there are only two parties
that's just retarded.
you can't rig elections if people can make secondary and tertiary votes. you can't buy elections with PR campaigns if people can make multiple choices. also, news organizations can't offer real time coverage of elections if there are multiple parties and multiple votes that have to be tallied. think of all that lost advertising revenue. whole industries have been built around there only being two very predictible parties and two overall philosophies, do you want those industries to go under?
a lot of time and money has been invested in gerrymandering the country in to a two party system so that's not going to be undone in this or any other lifetime.
you have plenty of choice, each election features two criminals who tell very well crafted lies based on focus groups, opinion polls, and consultants of all kinds. a lot of money had been spent on those lies, the least you can do is believe one of them.
the system is simple: just choose which lies you want to be disappointed by after the election and then play along and act surprised when the winner fails to deliver on them. the system works if we all do our part."
Wow that may be the most impressive example of sarcasm I have ever seen. At least I hope so.
I am a libertarian. The current nominees of my party are so divergent from my views that they or I must renounce the lable. It won't be me. I think Barr was nominated just to interfere with the republican vote and that disturbs me. How can Barr be a libertarian and be pro-life and anti gay marriage at the same time? He also supports central banking. Where is Ron Paul when you need him? Oh wait- He's a republican again and doesn't like black people. We're screwed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarians and Property Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By far one of the weakest statements posted on this site.
"Large group"...how large is "large"?
"Another camp"..how large is "camp"?
"Huge split"....really? Says who?
"Those who think IP is real property?...never met anyone, libertarian or otherwise, who "think" this is the case.
"Those who realize it is not at all like regular property"..."realize" implies this group is spot on and everyone else is wrong. Plus, what the heck is "regular property"?
Kinsella's presentation with "good" in the same sentence? At best it is superficial and uninformative. At worst it is no more than a dog and pony show to elicit laughs.
Sorry, but these comments are not up to par with what you usually present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Another camp"..how large is "camp"?
The answer is, frankly, I don't know, and it doesn't matter. There are a good amount of people on both sides. The Randian Objectivists, for example, are huge fans of IP. Then there are libertarian think tanks like PFF, which consistently advocate for stronger IP rights.
You have CATO which is neutral.
You have Mises, which is anti-IP.
So... I think it's a fair statement. The exact sizes doesn't matter -- but the fact that there is a split is true and easily defensible.
"Those who think IP is real property?...never met anyone, libertarian or otherwise, who "think" this is the case.
Then you haven't been paying attention. There are tons of people who think IP is real property.
Kinsella's presentation with "good" in the same sentence? At best it is superficial and uninformative. At worst it is no more than a dog and pony show to elicit laughs.
Do you have a substantive critique? I'd love to hear it. Simply declaring it not good doesn't tell us much about what you think is not true about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm very happy to argue why everyone's intellectual property rights should be protected just as much as their material property rights.
To see that one can both be a libertarian and in support of IP rights let’s see how, whilst still tightly adhering to the US constitution, the people’s liberty need not be unethically suspended, as it is by copyright and patent, when securing their natural intellectual property rights:
1. Authors and inventors, being human beings have a natural, exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
2. This natural right should be secured by the state – to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
3. The natural right can last no longer than the lifetime of the author or inventor.
4. The natural right should be secured for a limited time equal to the limited lifetime of the author or inventor, except in the event of unnatural death, when this limited time should be extended to secure a now unnatural exclusive right by a further quarter of the normal lifespan.
5. The natural right ceases to be exclusive when the author or inventor voluntarily communicates (or permits the communication of) their writings and discoveries to other parties, whether by gift or exchange.
6. An author’s or inventor’s writings and discoveries naturally remain exclusive to all natural parties to whom they have been voluntarily communicated (by any such party).
7. All such communicated parties may, as a collective, be treated as if a single author or inventor and should have secured (by the state) their natural, exclusive right for as long as they each shall live.
8. No communicated party may as a consequence submit to the abridgement of their freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to further communicate (the writings and discoveries voluntarily communicated to them) to whomsoever they choose. NB This doesn’t preclude a communicant’s commercial exchange of their continued silence (confidentiality).
9. Those who are not voluntarily communicated parties, who view, remove, copy, or otherwise communicate a party’s writings or discoveries to themselves (or any other) without that party’s permission shall be penalised statutorily (for the violation of privacy) and additionally in proportion to the market value of the publication of those writings or discoveries (where publication is their exchange for money with members of the public at large), and further required to restore any removal and destroy any copies manufactured. All who have been further illegitimately communicated may also be similarly liable in so far as they are complicit, but must at least also cease and reverse any communication in so far as it is practicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And some of the prominent tons of people are?
Do you have a substantive critique? I'd love to hear it. Simply declaring it not good doesn't tell us much about what you think is not true about it.
Do you have a substantive review? I'd love to hear it. Simply declaring it is good doesn't tell us much about what you think is true about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And some of the prominent tons of people are?
Well, angry dude, in his comment below. :)
But, did you miss the part of my comment where I mentioned Randian Objectivists and PFF, both of which claim that IP is property?
Or how about the RIAA, the MPAA and the BSA. All of which also insist that IP is property.
Do you have a substantive review? I'd love to hear it. Simply declaring it is good doesn't tell us much about what you think is true about it.
I've reviewed many of the points here substantively over the years. Which part do you think was not substantiated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When corporate America agrees to not use our inventions without consent, American inventors and small entities will agree to stop suing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When corporate America agrees to not use our inventions without consent, American inventors and small entities will agree to stop suing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lunch time lemmings
How do you think employment contracts would look like if patents were not transferrable from inventors to their corporate employers and further down the chain of corporate aquisitions and mergers ?
Like it ot not, but Patents ARE PROPERTY. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]