Hi I have a question for you guys and galls. Where do patents fit in in a free market ? Patents are legal property, they are similar to investments in that you take your money or labor time and put it into developing a new product, process or in the case of an investment a corporation, then you are entitled to a retern on your investment. The purpos of a patent is to recope losses incerd during R&D as well as a way for inovaters to profit from what is durring the duraration of the patent there intelectual property. In an unregulated or state absent market it would be difficult for many patent holders to secure there rights ( the exclusion of others from using there patent ) , have a remidy to seek restitution from infringment, or to have the market even acnowlge the patent as bieng ligitamite. This would discorage the inovater as there would be no reward for encorring the cost of thiere inovation since the new or more efficent product or process is open to all the market to exploit. Awnsers from differnet points of view are welcomed and encouraged. Espesialy if you wold void or alter the consept of the patent.
Thanks Bye
That's not how patents work. I suggest you read this by Stephan Kinsella: http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Jordan22473:Hi I have a question for you guys and galls. Where do patents fit in in a free market ? Patents are legal property, they are similar to investments in that you take your money or labor time and put it into developing a new product, process or in the case of an investment a corporation, then you are entitled to a retern on your investment.
You are entitled to do as you wish with your new invention, you're just not entitled to prevent me from using my property as I see fit.
Jordan22473: This would discorage the inovater as there would be no reward for encorring the cost of thiere inovation since the new or more efficent product or process is open to all the market to exploit. Awnsers from differnet points of view are welcomed and encouraged. Espesialy if you wold void or alter the consept of the patent. Thanks Bye
This would discorage the inovater as there would be no reward for encorring the cost of thiere inovation since the new or more efficent product or process is open to all the market to exploit. Awnsers from differnet points of view are welcomed and encouraged. Espesialy if you wold void or alter the consept of the patent.
This is theoretically innacurate. If you don't manage to read Against Intellectual Monopoly, make sure you catch the first 3 minutes of this video:
kk thankx!!
Irish Liberty Forum
A great book to read about all Intellectual Property is called Against Intellectual Monopoly. It can be found for free online from the authors website here:
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf
There are many arguments given in the book, but one quick answer is that a patent is a monopoly granted by the government which allows you to control what everyone else can do with their own property. Intellectual Property Rights cannot be legitimate Property Rights because it infringes on everyone elses.
Also there are many cases of simultaneous invention (which is the rule, not the exception as most believe), in which two or more people come up with the same idea around the same time. The one who is lucky enough to get it approved by the state first, can then use the force of the government to shut down competitors, or make them pay royalties to you even though they have created the idea on their own.
The book covers many more examples and ideas, and is a highly recommended read to anyone and everyone... It completely changes your view on Intellectual Property.
Free market is absence of monopoly, but patents create 10-year monopolies.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Jordan22473:This would discorage the inovater as there would be no reward for encorring the cost of thiere inovation since the new or more efficent product or process is open to all the market to exploit.
The reward is the inventor/entrepreneur gets the product to market first, what people do with that product once it is purchased is not dictated or ought not be dictated by the inventor/entrepreneur.
Trade secrets are fine, as they don't infringe upon property rights, patents are time limited trade secrets, this violates property. Other posters have already given the resources that back this up. They are good resources.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Thanks for the great Video link.
Patents are perfectly legitimate in free market, and free market never meant the absence of state. The existence of a state which protects individual and proprietal rights is what allows human exchange to be protected. The state's legitimate authority is only in protecting those rights, and once it exceeds its jurisdiction, it will end up violating those rights and hence will be illegal against its own laws - thus replacing law and order with the whim of the oligarchy. Opposition to government intervention in economy only happens because it involves taking the power away from law and order and into the hands of people who arbitrarily decide to compromise human liberty. It's a little misleading to assume that non-interventionism in the market means government doing nothing; the government always is doing something, by maintaing the system of laws that protecting rights of people. Classical liberals like Mills, Spencer, and Smith more or less clarified these ideas.
In an ideal minimal state with exhaustive functions, patenting ideas means that allocation of scarce resources in society by independently functioning people is allowed to happen - in this case, it means allocation of information and ideas goes into the most rewarding ventures, and the creation of wealth is allowed to flow down to people who get the best ideas. If purchase of rights over intellectual property isn't a protection of people's rights and freedoms, what is?
Prateek Sanjay:In an ideal minimal state with exhaustive functions, patenting ideas means that allocation of scarce resources in society by independently functioning people is allowed to happen - in this case, it means allocation of information and ideas goes into the most rewarding ventures, and the creation of wealth is allowed to flow down to people who get the best ideas.
Smiling Dave:Thanks for the great Video link.
That is from Nielsio's (community member) Youtube channel. He has a lot more great videos worth checking out. He turned me on to Marc Stevens.
I first posted that video maybe a couple months ago for Giles and Lam, and I think both ignored it (inconvenient truths perhaps). Then I posted it again, and now people are referring to it all the time. It is pretty cool because I think most of the regulars here will be able to watch it, and appreciate a fascinating non-Austrian in origin, but very austro-compatible view on education, science and IP as public private goods.
Please continue to share it around.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Prateek Sanjay:Patents are perfectly legitimate in free market, and free market never meant the absence of state.
Your making an economic argument that it is more economical and that we produce more wealth by preventing copying of production of various goods and services. When in fact it is the opposite. Keeping copy cats out of the market means there is less selection, less quantity, and less overall wealth. We produce less things and that means less for everyone. Allowing copy cats in the market increases selection, competition, quality, and lowers price. This is econ 101, supply/demand.
If a new idea generates a high demand in the market more entrepreneur's are not only attracted to that market but they actually need to come and fill that consumer need gap. Preventing entrapaneurs from doing this is economically backwards as it prevents further economic growth. Economic growth means more wealth for all.
Statism is a religion.
Prateek Sanjay: Patents are perfectly legitimate in free market, and free market never meant the absence of state. The existence of a state which protects individual and proprietal rights is what allows human exchange to be protected. The state's legitimate authority is only in protecting those rights, and once it exceeds its jurisdiction, it will end up violating those rights and hence will be illegal against its own laws - thus replacing law and order with the whim of the oligarchy. Opposition to government intervention in economy only happens because it involves taking the power away from law and order and into the hands of people who arbitrarily decide to compromise human liberty. It's a little misleading to assume that non-interventionism in the market means government doing nothing; the government always is doing something, by maintaing the system of laws that protecting rights of people. Classical liberals like Mills, Spencer, and Smith more or less clarified these ideas. In an ideal minimal state with exhaustive functions, patenting ideas means that allocation of scarce resources in society by independently functioning people is allowed to happen - in this case, it means allocation of information and ideas goes into the most rewarding ventures, and the creation of wealth is allowed to flow down to people who get the best ideas. If purchase of rights over intellectual property isn't a protection of people's rights and freedoms, what is?
How would this minimal state be finance?
Minimal state is financed by taxes; which, yes, is a cost on society, and yet helps bear or reduce other possible costs that people would have had to bear, like having crime in society. If there were no law enforcement, there could still be a mafia-like organized crime for people's protection and rooting out independent criminals, but then the costs of extortion for protection would still be present and would just as well replace taxes. Obviously, those costs would be far less for everyone, if you simply placed police officers following an independent code of laws equal for everyone, because then nobody would have to face people who smash your windows for not paying protection money. Because laws apply to even law enforcement, and hence it is not as arbitrary as the protection by organized criminals.
So paying to the state for protection is, in my view, no different from paying premium to an insurance company, so that you can get somebody else to bear a certain cost and risk that you yourself can't bear, in return for paying a small cost on your part. Having a small and honest government, but a government nonetheless, is good, because you could even be a foreigner trying to enforce a trading contract that you made, and this little government with its judicial system would still give you the same treatment and protection, and hence reduce everybody's cost of doing their activities. As was the case in 19th century Britain, and hence was exactly what encouraged Lombards and French people to do business there.
Prateek Sanjay:The existence of a state which protects individual and proprietal rights is what allows human exchange to be protected.
This is false. Rights and property rights have been protected without states. Rights and property exist before states, not after them.
Prateek Sanjay:The state's legitimate authority is only in protecting those rights, and once it exceeds its jurisdiction, it will end up violating those rights and hence will be illegal against its own laws - thus replacing law and order with the whim of the oligarchy.
The state has no legitimate authority. Authority can only come with consent. I never gave my consent.
Prateek Sanjay:It's a little misleading to assume that non-interventionism in the market means government doing nothing;
No, it is just rationally coherent and intellectually honest.
Prateek Sanjay:the government always is doing something, by maintaing the system of laws that protecting rights of people.
The government cannot protect rights of everyone by establishing a monopoly.
Prateek Sanjay:patenting ideas means that allocation of scarce resources in society by independently functioning people is allowed to happen
What?
Prateek Sanjay:in this case, it means allocation of information and ideas goes into the most rewarding ventures, and the creation of wealth is allowed to flow down to people who get the best ideas.
You don't require patents for that.
Prateek Sanjay:If purchase of rights over intellectual property isn't a protection of people's rights and freedoms, what is?
What does this mean?
Patents are simply a monopoly privilege granted by the state. It allows the patent holder to control what other people can and cannot do with their property. Patents are immoral.
Prateek Sanjay:Minimal state is financed by taxes; which, yes, is a cost on society, and yet helps bear or reduce other possible costs that people would have had to bear, like having crime in society.
However, value is subjective. That is, perhaps you would rather have the state, while I would not. That is, perhaps the cost of the state outweighs the cost of not having the state to me, but not to you.
Prateek Sanjay:If there were no law enforcement, there could still be a mafia-like organized crime for people's protection and rooting out independent criminals, but then the costs of extortion for protection would still be present and would just as well replace taxes. Obviously, those costs would be far less for everyone, if you simply placed police officers following an independent code of laws equal for everyone, because then nobody would have to face people who smash your windows for not paying protection money. Because laws apply to even law enforcement, and hence it is not as arbitrary as the protection by organized criminals.
What happens when it is the police that start smashing your windows?
Prateek Sanjay:So paying to the state for protection is, in my view, no different from paying premium to an insurance company, so that you can get somebody else to bear a certain cost and risk that you yourself can't bear, in return for paying a small cost on your part. Having a small and honest government, but a government nonetheless, is good, because you could even be a foreigner trying to enforce a trading contract that you made, and this little government with its judicial system would still give you the same treatment and protection, and hence reduce everybody's cost of doing their activities. As was the case in 19th century Britain, and hence was exactly what encouraged Lombards and French people to do business there.
The major difference between the state and the insurance company is that paying the insurance company is voluntary, while the state initiates coercion to get you to pay it.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap