Gyroscopic Investing

I love it.

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:33 pm One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas.

Yes, and this is why I think ultimately patent law does more harm than copyright law, even though copyright lasts far longer. It does hamper free speech, learning, freedom of the press, and threatens Internet freedom, but patents are even worse since the *very reason* we humans are as prosperous as we are is because every generation builds on and accumulates knowledge of causal laws--technical knowledge, engineering knowledge etc. The reason 7 billion people are so much richer per capita today than people from 1000, 500, even 30 years ago, is because we keep accumulating knowledge, we keep learning, and advancing. THe world is made of scarce resources but successful human action has TWO ingredients: 1, the use of some scarce material resources, and 2. guided by knowledge about how the world works. Both are essential and key, but while we can't really change #1, the fundamental fact of scarcity, we can keep increasing our knowledge, and thus our efficiency in ways of manipulating the world, that is, in using the scarce resources at our disposal. This is why the human race prospers: because we can all dip into the "fund of experience" ( I think this is Hayek's expression -- http://c4sif.org/2013/08/hayeks-views-o ... -property/ -- and that means that we must continue to have the ability to learn from others, and from the past, and to communicate it to others (which copyright hampers) and to build on it without impediment (which patent law stands in the way of). The very idea of society *intentionally* imposing *artificial scarcity* (which is what patent law is) *on purpose* to intentionally "slow down' the rate of innovation and progress is literally insane, evil, suicidal, horrific beyond all measure. We are literally killing billions of potential or unborn or future humans, by senselessly slowing down or impeding the pace of technological understanding and innovation. I continue to be dumbfounded and astounded that anyone other than pyschopaths and misanthropes are in favor of any form of IP at all.

nskinsella wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:27 pm

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:33 pm One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas.

Yes, and this is why I think ultimately patent law does more harm than copyright law, even though copyright lasts far longer. It does hamper free speech, learning, freedom of the press, and threatens Internet freedom, but patents are even worse since the *very reason* we humans are as prosperous as we are is because every generation builds on and accumulates knowledge of causal laws--technical knowledge, engineering knowledge etc. The reason 7 billion people are so much richer per capita today than people from 1000, 500, even 30 years ago, is because we keep accumulating knowledge, we keep learning, and advancing. THe world is made of scarce resources but successful human action has TWO ingredients: 1, the use of some scarce material resources, and 2. guided by knowledge about how the world works. Both are essential and key, but while we can't really change #1, the fundamental fact of scarcity, we can keep increasing our knowledge, and thus our efficiency in ways of manipulating the world, that is, in using the scarce resources at our disposal. This is why the human race prospers: because we can all dip into the "fund of experience" ( I think this is Hayek's expression -- http://c4sif.org/2013/08/hayeks-views-o ... -property/ -- and that means that we must continue to have the ability to learn from others, and from the past, and to communicate it to others (which copyright hampers) and to build on it without impediment (which patent law stands in the way of). The very idea of society *intentionally* imposing *artificial scarcity* (which is what patent law is) *on purpose* to intentionally "slow down' the rate of innovation and progress is literally insane, evil, suicidal, horrific beyond all measure. We are literally killing billions of potential or unborn or future humans, by senselessly slowing down or impeding the pace of technological understanding and innovation. I continue to be dumbfounded and astounded that anyone other than pyschopaths and misanthropes are in favor of any form of IP at all.

If you can't see how others can have different opinions from yours without being psychopaths or misanthropes, maybe they're not the problem.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:34 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:27 pm

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:33 pm One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas.

Yes, and this is why I think ultimately patent law does more harm than copyright law, even though copyright lasts far longer. It does hamper free speech, learning, freedom of the press, and threatens Internet freedom, but patents are even worse since the *very reason* we humans are as prosperous as we are is because every generation builds on and accumulates knowledge of causal laws--technical knowledge, engineering knowledge etc. The reason 7 billion people are so much richer per capita today than people from 1000, 500, even 30 years ago, is because we keep accumulating knowledge, we keep learning, and advancing. THe world is made of scarce resources but successful human action has TWO ingredients: 1, the use of some scarce material resources, and 2. guided by knowledge about how the world works. Both are essential and key, but while we can't really change #1, the fundamental fact of scarcity, we can keep increasing our knowledge, and thus our efficiency in ways of manipulating the world, that is, in using the scarce resources at our disposal. This is why the human race prospers: because we can all dip into the "fund of experience" ( I think this is Hayek's expression -- http://c4sif.org/2013/08/hayeks-views-o ... -property/ -- and that means that we must continue to have the ability to learn from others, and from the past, and to communicate it to others (which copyright hampers) and to build on it without impediment (which patent law stands in the way of). The very idea of society *intentionally* imposing *artificial scarcity* (which is what patent law is) *on purpose* to intentionally "slow down' the rate of innovation and progress is literally insane, evil, suicidal, horrific beyond all measure. We are literally killing billions of potential or unborn or future humans, by senselessly slowing down or impeding the pace of technological understanding and innovation. I continue to be dumbfounded and astounded that anyone other than pyschopaths and misanthropes are in favor of any form of IP at all.

If you can't see how others can have different opinions from yours without being psychopaths or misanthropes, maybe they're not the problem.

But they have no *evidence* for any contrary view. They say they support IP because it encourages innovation, at a reasonable enough cost. They can't tell you what these benefits are or what the cost it, however. Everyone knows IP has a cost, and prima facie restricts liberty and distorts the free market. All we know is that the system imposes causes, and does harm. Proponents of the IP system cannot show what the alleged benefits are. Yet they support it anyway. Why?

Incidentally, I did not say that people who disagree with are psychopaths/misanthropes. What I said was I could understand a misanthrope etc. being for IP law, *because they want bad things for humanity*. Given their goals, they would be correct to choose IP a a way of achieving that! I am saying that for people who are NOT misanthropes, i.e. for normal, decent people who DO want good things for society and humanity, I am baffled they are still in support of IP.

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:53 am But they have no *evidence* for any contrary view. They say they support IP because it encourages innovation, at a reasonable enough cost. They can't tell you what these benefits are or what the cost it, however. Everyone knows IP has a cost, and prima facie restricts liberty and distorts the free market. All we know is that the system imposes causes, and does harm. Proponents of the IP system cannot show what the alleged benefits are. Yet they support it anyway. Why?

Why did you support it for so long before you changed your mind? You weren’t a misanthrope. Why, then?

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:53 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:34 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:27 pm

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:33 pm One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas.

Yes, and this is why I think ultimately patent law does more harm than copyright law, even though copyright lasts far longer. It does hamper free speech, learning, freedom of the press, and threatens Internet freedom, but patents are even worse since the *very reason* we humans are as prosperous as we are is because every generation builds on and accumulates knowledge of causal laws--technical knowledge, engineering knowledge etc. The reason 7 billion people are so much richer per capita today than people from 1000, 500, even 30 years ago, is because we keep accumulating knowledge, we keep learning, and advancing. THe world is made of scarce resources but successful human action has TWO ingredients: 1, the use of some scarce material resources, and 2. guided by knowledge about how the world works. Both are essential and key, but while we can't really change #1, the fundamental fact of scarcity, we can keep increasing our knowledge, and thus our efficiency in ways of manipulating the world, that is, in using the scarce resources at our disposal. This is why the human race prospers: because we can all dip into the "fund of experience" ( I think this is Hayek's expression -- http://c4sif.org/2013/08/hayeks-views-o ... -property/ -- and that means that we must continue to have the ability to learn from others, and from the past, and to communicate it to others (which copyright hampers) and to build on it without impediment (which patent law stands in the way of). The very idea of society *intentionally* imposing *artificial scarcity* (which is what patent law is) *on purpose* to intentionally "slow down' the rate of innovation and progress is literally insane, evil, suicidal, horrific beyond all measure. We are literally killing billions of potential or unborn or future humans, by senselessly slowing down or impeding the pace of technological understanding and innovation. I continue to be dumbfounded and astounded that anyone other than pyschopaths and misanthropes are in favor of any form of IP at all.

If you can't see how others can have different opinions from yours without being psychopaths or misanthropes, maybe they're not the problem.

But they have no *evidence* for any contrary view. They say they support IP because it encourages innovation, at a reasonable enough cost. They can't tell you what these benefits are or what the cost it, however. Everyone knows IP has a cost, and prima facie restricts liberty and distorts the free market. All we know is that the system imposes causes, and does harm. Proponents of the IP system cannot show what the alleged benefits are. Yet they support it anyway. Why?

Incidentally, I did not say that people who disagree with are psychopaths/misanthropes. What I said was I could understand a misanthrope etc. being for IP law, *because they want bad things for humanity*. Given their goals, they would be correct to choose IP a a way of achieving that! I am saying that for people who are NOT misanthropes, i.e. for normal, decent people who DO want good things for society and humanity, I am baffled they are still in support of IP.

Maybe you should read my pro-IP argument. It's on another thread here.

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:57 am

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:53 am But they have no *evidence* for any contrary view. They say they support IP because it encourages innovation, at a reasonable enough cost. They can't tell you what these benefits are or what the cost it, however. Everyone knows IP has a cost, and prima facie restricts liberty and distorts the free market. All we know is that the system imposes causes, and does harm. Proponents of the IP system cannot show what the alleged benefits are. Yet they support it anyway. Why?

Why did you support it for so long before you changed your mind? You weren’t a misanthrope. Why, then?

I never did support it. The first argument I heard was Rand's. I assumed she was right, since she seemed to be right about other things. I assumed there was some argument out there that was eluding me, since there were obviously some problems with Rand's formulation. I set myself on a multi-year task to figure it out myself. I thought I would be "the one" to do it, since I was uniquely equipped. So I studied and read and thoguht about it and toyed with various ideas and arguments and possible justifications. I kept running into obstacles, problems, dead ends, so I would back up, try something else, on and on. Finally during this process I learned enough that it finally became clear to me why I could not succeed, why I could not find anything resembling a coherent defense of IP. I would have been happy to find one already done. I didn't need to reinvent the wheel. so I read all of them--the coaseians, Rand, Spooner, Galambos, Schulman, etc. etc. etc. Every single one of them was cringeworthy, obviously flawed. Finally by seeing all the deep flaws in every attempt to justify IP, I could not but help by learn by osmosis that the entire case itself is flawed. At the same time I was reading people "on the side" and getting a deeper understanding of Austrian economic theory and the idea of scarcity (from people like Mises, Hume, Hoppe) and the nature of contracts and property rights, etc., and so having absorbed all this, it made it easier for me to start explaining these things in a coherent way, and how to explain why all other IP arguments are flawed and are doomed to be flawed.

I've lectured on this, interviewed, spoken, and written on all this many times over the last 20 years. I'd be happy to adumbrate. I did a 7 part detailed lecture series a few years ago (2011) for Mises Academy (twice); of course, it's online for free and you are free to take the course if you want:
See http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podc ... demy-2011/

OR, I did a 6 part lecture the same year on Libertarian Legal Theory, and I think I devoted one episode (lecture 5 I think) to IP --you are free to listen. http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podc ... demy-2011/

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:28 am

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:53 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:34 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:27 pm

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:33 pm One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas.

Yes, and this is why I think ultimately patent law does more harm than copyright law, even though copyright lasts far longer. It does hamper free speech, learning, freedom of the press, and threatens Internet freedom, but patents are even worse since the *very reason* we humans are as prosperous as we are is because every generation builds on and accumulates knowledge of causal laws--technical knowledge, engineering knowledge etc. The reason 7 billion people are so much richer per capita today than people from 1000, 500, even 30 years ago, is because we keep accumulating knowledge, we keep learning, and advancing. THe world is made of scarce resources but successful human action has TWO ingredients: 1, the use of some scarce material resources, and 2. guided by knowledge about how the world works. Both are essential and key, but while we can't really change #1, the fundamental fact of scarcity, we can keep increasing our knowledge, and thus our efficiency in ways of manipulating the world, that is, in using the scarce resources at our disposal. This is why the human race prospers: because we can all dip into the "fund of experience" ( I think this is Hayek's expression -- http://c4sif.org/2013/08/hayeks-views-o ... -property/ -- and that means that we must continue to have the ability to learn from others, and from the past, and to communicate it to others (which copyright hampers) and to build on it without impediment (which patent law stands in the way of). The very idea of society *intentionally* imposing *artificial scarcity* (which is what patent law is) *on purpose* to intentionally "slow down' the rate of innovation and progress is literally insane, evil, suicidal, horrific beyond all measure. We are literally killing billions of potential or unborn or future humans, by senselessly slowing down or impeding the pace of technological understanding and innovation. I continue to be dumbfounded and astounded that anyone other than pyschopaths and misanthropes are in favor of any form of IP at all.

If you can't see how others can have different opinions from yours without being psychopaths or misanthropes, maybe they're not the problem.

But they have no *evidence* for any contrary view. They say they support IP because it encourages innovation, at a reasonable enough cost. They can't tell you what these benefits are or what the cost it, however. Everyone knows IP has a cost, and prima facie restricts liberty and distorts the free market. All we know is that the system imposes causes, and does harm. Proponents of the IP system cannot show what the alleged benefits are. Yet they support it anyway. Why?

Incidentally, I did not say that people who disagree with are psychopaths/misanthropes. What I said was I could understand a misanthrope etc. being for IP law, *because they want bad things for humanity*. Given their goals, they would be correct to choose IP a a way of achieving that! I am saying that for people who are NOT misanthropes, i.e. for normal, decent people who DO want good things for society and humanity, I am baffled they are still in support of IP.

Maybe you should read my pro-IP argument. It's on another thread here.

.... where is it? I'd be happy to take a look. I was unaware of this. I assume you start out by carefully defining what you mean by "IP," by explaining the nature and function and purpose of law, how and what types of law is justified, and then explain why IP (which you've already carefully defined) is justified by applying this general theory to it, and then setting out your own basic sketch or outline of what an ideal IP system would look like, what the terms of copryfgiht would be and why, what the scope would be and why, why some things are left out, and others included, and compare and contrast it to the current IP system to show where it's lacking, right? I'd love to read this! I've been looking for this for 20+ years!! Squee!

I never did support it

Just to be clear: when you first joined an Intellectual Property Practice Group, you didn’t support IP.

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:32 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:28 am

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:53 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:34 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:27 pm

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:33 pm One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas.

Yes, and this is why I think ultimately patent law does more harm than copyright law, even though copyright lasts far longer. It does hamper free speech, learning, freedom of the press, and threatens Internet freedom, but patents are even worse since the *very reason* we humans are as prosperous as we are is because every generation builds on and accumulates knowledge of causal laws--technical knowledge, engineering knowledge etc. The reason 7 billion people are so much richer per capita today than people from 1000, 500, even 30 years ago, is because we keep accumulating knowledge, we keep learning, and advancing. THe world is made of scarce resources but successful human action has TWO ingredients: 1, the use of some scarce material resources, and 2. guided by knowledge about how the world works. Both are essential and key, but while we can't really change #1, the fundamental fact of scarcity, we can keep increasing our knowledge, and thus our efficiency in ways of manipulating the world, that is, in using the scarce resources at our disposal. This is why the human race prospers: because we can all dip into the "fund of experience" ( I think this is Hayek's expression -- http://c4sif.org/2013/08/hayeks-views-o ... -property/ -- and that means that we must continue to have the ability to learn from others, and from the past, and to communicate it to others (which copyright hampers) and to build on it without impediment (which patent law stands in the way of). The very idea of society *intentionally* imposing *artificial scarcity* (which is what patent law is) *on purpose* to intentionally "slow down' the rate of innovation and progress is literally insane, evil, suicidal, horrific beyond all measure. We are literally killing billions of potential or unborn or future humans, by senselessly slowing down or impeding the pace of technological understanding and innovation. I continue to be dumbfounded and astounded that anyone other than pyschopaths and misanthropes are in favor of any form of IP at all.

If you can't see how others can have different opinions from yours without being psychopaths or misanthropes, maybe they're not the problem.

But they have no *evidence* for any contrary view. They say they support IP because it encourages innovation, at a reasonable enough cost. They can't tell you what these benefits are or what the cost it, however. Everyone knows IP has a cost, and prima facie restricts liberty and distorts the free market. All we know is that the system imposes causes, and does harm. Proponents of the IP system cannot show what the alleged benefits are. Yet they support it anyway. Why?

Incidentally, I did not say that people who disagree with are psychopaths/misanthropes. What I said was I could understand a misanthrope etc. being for IP law, *because they want bad things for humanity*. Given their goals, they would be correct to choose IP a a way of achieving that! I am saying that for people who are NOT misanthropes, i.e. for normal, decent people who DO want good things for society and humanity, I am baffled they are still in support of IP.

Maybe you should read my pro-IP argument. It's on another thread here.

.... where is it? I'd be happy to take a look. I was unaware of this. I assume you start out by carefully defining what you mean by "IP," by explaining the nature and function and purpose of law, how and what types of law is justified, and then explain why IP (which you've already carefully defined) is justified by applying this general theory to it, and then setting out your own basic sketch or outline of what an ideal IP system would look like, what the terms of copryfgiht would be and why, what the scope would be and why, why some things are left out, and others included, and compare and contrast it to the current IP system to show where it's lacking, right? I'd love to read this! I've been looking for this for 20+ years!! Squee!

I make a moral argument for IP. It's downloadable from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10689#p195324

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:34 am

I never did support it

Just to be clear: when you first joined an Intellectual Property Practice Group, you didn’t support IP.

Correct. I have never supported IP, whatever that means. But given the existence of these laws, there are a need for professionals to help people navigate this system. Again, I've already responded to the smartass type arguments already, many times. see e.g. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/ ... -attorney/ and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/09/ ... -punished/ and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/10/ ... nnovation/ and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/ ... tent-work/ .

But people always do this little song and dance. they want to make it about me. It's basically dishonest and ad hominem. People want a "gotcha" instead of a sound argument and truth. They want to say "well you're a hypocrite!" Okay. So what. What does this prove? Stephan Kinsella is a hypocrite. Fine. Does that prove that patent law is justified? Think about it.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:20 am

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:32 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:28 am

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:53 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:34 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:27 pm

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:33 pm One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas.

Yes, and this is why I think ultimately patent law does more harm than copyright law, even though copyright lasts far longer. It does hamper free speech, learning, freedom of the press, and threatens Internet freedom, but patents are even worse since the *very reason* we humans are as prosperous as we are is because every generation builds on and accumulates knowledge of causal laws--technical knowledge, engineering knowledge etc. The reason 7 billion people are so much richer per capita today than people from 1000, 500, even 30 years ago, is because we keep accumulating knowledge, we keep learning, and advancing. THe world is made of scarce resources but successful human action has TWO ingredients: 1, the use of some scarce material resources, and 2. guided by knowledge about how the world works. Both are essential and key, but while we can't really change #1, the fundamental fact of scarcity, we can keep increasing our knowledge, and thus our efficiency in ways of manipulating the world, that is, in using the scarce resources at our disposal. This is why the human race prospers: because we can all dip into the "fund of experience" ( I think this is Hayek's expression -- http://c4sif.org/2013/08/hayeks-views-o ... -property/ -- and that means that we must continue to have the ability to learn from others, and from the past, and to communicate it to others (which copyright hampers) and to build on it without impediment (which patent law stands in the way of). The very idea of society *intentionally* imposing *artificial scarcity* (which is what patent law is) *on purpose* to intentionally "slow down' the rate of innovation and progress is literally insane, evil, suicidal, horrific beyond all measure. We are literally killing billions of potential or unborn or future humans, by senselessly slowing down or impeding the pace of technological understanding and innovation. I continue to be dumbfounded and astounded that anyone other than pyschopaths and misanthropes are in favor of any form of IP at all.

If you can't see how others can have different opinions from yours without being psychopaths or misanthropes, maybe they're not the problem.

But they have no *evidence* for any contrary view. They say they support IP because it encourages innovation, at a reasonable enough cost. They can't tell you what these benefits are or what the cost it, however. Everyone knows IP has a cost, and prima facie restricts liberty and distorts the free market. All we know is that the system imposes causes, and does harm. Proponents of the IP system cannot show what the alleged benefits are. Yet they support it anyway. Why?

Incidentally, I did not say that people who disagree with are psychopaths/misanthropes. What I said was I could understand a misanthrope etc. being for IP law, *because they want bad things for humanity*. Given their goals, they would be correct to choose IP a a way of achieving that! I am saying that for people who are NOT misanthropes, i.e. for normal, decent people who DO want good things for society and humanity, I am baffled they are still in support of IP.

Maybe you should read my pro-IP argument. It's on another thread here.

.... where is it? I'd be happy to take a look. I was unaware of this. I assume you start out by carefully defining what you mean by "IP," by explaining the nature and function and purpose of law, how and what types of law is justified, and then explain why IP (which you've already carefully defined) is justified by applying this general theory to it, and then setting out your own basic sketch or outline of what an ideal IP system would look like, what the terms of copryfgiht would be and why, what the scope would be and why, why some things are left out, and others included, and compare and contrast it to the current IP system to show where it's lacking, right? I'd love to read this! I've been looking for this for 20+ years!! Squee!

I make a moral argument for IP. It's downloadable from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10689#p195324

Oh, I'm familiar with your foreword. It's just not an argument. You never even define IP. You just say that programmers create origitent. It's really just an assertion with no argument at all. What you need to do is explain what IP is, and then explain why certain uses of force against "infringers"--i.e., people who copy, i.e., people who compete, i.e. people who learn--is justified.

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:29 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:34 am

I never did support it

Just to be clear: when you first joined an Intellectual Property Practice Group, you didn’t support IP.

Correct. I have never supported IP, whatever that means. But given the existence of these laws, there are a need for professionals to help people navigate this system. Again, I've already responded to the smartass type arguments already, many times. see e.g. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/ ... -attorney/ and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/09/ ... -punished/ and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/10/ ... nnovation/ and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/ ... tent-work/ .

But people always do this little song and dance. they want to make it about me. It's basically dishonest and ad hominem. People want a "gotcha" instead of a sound argument and truth. They want to say "well you're a hypocrite!" Okay. So what. What does this prove? Stephan Kinsella is a hypocrite. Fine. Does that prove that patent law is justified? Think about it.

For what it’s worth, this wasn’t supposed to be a gotcha question in my case. On the contrary- it’s obvious you would have had years upon years to prepare before saying “I’ve never supported it.”

I’m only clarifying because you’re saying you don’t understand people who support it, and I assume that includes people who don’t even make money off of it.

You’ve got this covered when you say it doesn’t matter that you’re a hypocrite. (I mean that in a non-smartass way).

Reading your site, I saw you mentioned patent trolls. I had completely forgot about them. I think there was an episode of 60 Minutes about them once upon a time. If not, perhaps a popular article.

That’s something you and CT-Scott should really mention early on if you want to win the hearts and minds of non-lawyers. Patent trolls are truly repulsive.

Another thing you should do is to provide some examples of how creators will still be able to profit from the investment of time/money that they have put into creating a work of art or technology (assuming the work actually has sufficient value to other people) and won't lose all value to free riders. Just saying that "your bad business model is not my problem" is not going to win hearts and minds. Believe it or not, fairness means a lot to a lot of people. Believe it or not also, you are not arguing for the status quo, but for just the opposite, so if you are going to get things changed, you have a bigger burden of proof. On the other hand, if your goal is just to engage in ivory-tower lofty arguments without really changing anything in the real world, then you don't have to worry about actually changing hearts and minds.

You very well may have some excellent points about the current IP system not being the best system that is available, but creators still deserve some type of protection simply out of fairness because they were the ones who created the work. Call it IP or not, it doesn't matter, just make sure that free riders can't suck an unreasonable portion of the value away from the actual creator of a work.

nskinsella wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:32 am
Oh, I'm familiar with your foreword. It's just not an argument. You never even define IP. You just say that programmers create origitent. It's really just an assertion with no argument at all. What you need to do is explain what IP is, and then explain why certain uses of force against "infringers"--i.e., people who copy, i.e., people who compete, i.e. people who learn--is justified.

I never engage in religious arguments, especially with cult members such as yourself. Goodbye.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:15 pm Another thing you should do is to provide some examples of how creators will still be able to profit from the investment of time/money that they have put into creating a work of art or technology (assuming the work actually has sufficient value to other people) and won't lose all value to free riders.

Isn't one way to compensate creators a one-time payment for their creations? (The payment could obviously be negotiated.) It doesn't seem obvious to me that a creator (or anyone else) necessarily has a "right" to continue to extract monetary value from a creation for a long period of time after the creation has been revealed to the public and can be easily copied thereafter.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:49 pm Isn't one way to compensate creators a one-time payment for their creations? (The payment could obviously be negotiated.) It doesn't seem obvious to me that a creator (or anyone else) necessarily has a "right" to continue to extract monetary value from a creation for a long period of time after the creation has been revealed to the public and can be easily copied thereafter.

Wow, I think the author of a novel should get a piece of that for one hundred years, as long as the book continues to sell. (I'd set it at one lifetime, but for certain kinds of valuable IP, some might be tempted to murder the creator).

A lifesaving drug...I can see why generics are eventually allowed to arise.

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:37 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:49 pm Isn't one way to compensate creators a one-time payment for their creations? (The payment could obviously be negotiated.) It doesn't seem obvious to me that a creator (or anyone else) necessarily has a "right" to continue to extract monetary value from a creation for a long period of time after the creation has been revealed to the public and can be easily copied thereafter.

Wow, I think the author of a novel should get a piece of that for one hundred years, as long as the book continues to sell. (I'd set it at one lifetime, but for certain kinds of valuable IP, some might be tempted to murder the creator).

A lifesaving drug...I can see why generics are eventually allowed to arise.

Just as a thought experiment, what would you think about some kind of mandatory licensing? It could be a middle ground between public domain and full "ownership". In other words, Charles Dickens's estate could still be paid some reasonable percentage of the revenue from derivative works, but could not forbid (or otherwise weigh in on) their creation.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:49 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:15 pm Another thing you should do is to provide some examples of how creators will still be able to profit from the investment of time/money that they have put into creating a work of art or technology (assuming the work actually has sufficient value to other people) and won't lose all value to free riders.

Isn't one way to compensate creators a one-time payment for their creations? (The payment could obviously be negotiated.) It doesn't seem obvious to me that a creator (or anyone else) necessarily has a "right" to continue to extract monetary value from a creation for a long period of time after the creation has been revealed to the public and can be easily copied thereafter.

A one-time payment from whom? If this involves government, count me out. I'm a small government guy.

If a creation is important enough to continue to have value for a long period of time, then I don't see why the creator shouldn't continue to benefit. You used the word "extract" which sounds very negative, like he's sucking value from someone else. Well, who was it that created the thing to begin with? I would say something like reap the rewards of his creativity.

If it's something short-lived, then the creator will only benefit for a short period of time.

Maybe the one-time payment could come from some kind of free-market "group auction" where the creator would set a desired price on his creation and let any interested "early adopters" sign up to pay an equal share of that price?

For example, if only 100 early adopters sign up, then each one pays 1/100 of the total. But if a million early adopters sign up, each one pays only one-millionth of the total. Or maybe each early adopter can offer to pay whatever he's willing to pay, so some will pay more and some will pay less. Kind of like Kickstarter or Patreon.

After the creator's "group auction," he would no longer have any control over the creation. He obtained his desired total compensation for it and, in exchange, gave up his control of it. And nobody else would control it either -- the early adopters could do whatever they want with it, including make it available for free copying.

Again, this is just me envisioning one possible imaginary world.

What happens if I think my creation will eventually be worth $10M after enough people see the wisdom in it, but the early adopters right now are only willing to pay a combined total of $10k?

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:56 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:37 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:49 pm Isn't one way to compensate creators a one-time payment for their creations? (The payment could obviously be negotiated.) It doesn't seem obvious to me that a creator (or anyone else) necessarily has a "right" to continue to extract monetary value from a creation for a long period of time after the creation has been revealed to the public and can be easily copied thereafter.

Wow, I think the author of a novel should get a piece of that for one hundred years, as long as the book continues to sell. (I'd set it at one lifetime, but for certain kinds of valuable IP, some might be tempted to murder the creator).

A lifesaving drug...I can see why generics are eventually allowed to arise.

Just as a thought experiment, what would you think about some kind of mandatory licensing? It could be a middle ground between public domain and full "ownership". In other words, Charles Dickens's estate could still be paid some reasonable percentage of the revenue from derivative works, but could not forbid (or otherwise weigh in on) their creation.

Me? I like it if I understand what you're saying. Specifically, I don't think Dickens' heirs should have the legal right to stop movie adaptations or Magwitch action figures. But, I don't think anyone should be allowed to change the wording of the original text and pass it off as Dickens' work.

I actually read a Dickens derivative work- Jack Maggs, by the Australian writer, Peter Carey. I wonder if he had to get permission.
Kate Bush wanted to sing some bits of James Joyce's Odyssey, but couldn't get permission. That's weird. She had to dance around it - https://youtu.be/h1DDndY0FLI

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:01 pm What happens if I think my creation will eventually be worth $10M after enough people see the wisdom in it, but the early adopters right now are only willing to pay a combined total of $10k?

I think the hypothetical "group auctions" could be implemented in a number of possible ways.

One way would be to start the auction with a zero-commitment "initial interest phase," where anyone signs up if they have any interest in the creation, regardless of the total price that the creator is initially suggesting.

If the creator's suggested price tag is $10M, but only 1000 people sign up in the "initial interest phase" each willing to pay only $10, then yes, the implication would be that the asking price may be too high.

The auction could then proceed to an iterative "negotiation phase," in which the creator would have a few options: (a) change his total asking price, (b) find a way to drum up more interest in his creation to get more early adopters to sign up, (c) stick with his asking price and just wait to see how interest changes over time, etc. And the potential buyers could dynamically adjust their indicated level of interest as the negotiation proceeds over time.

If the creation were such that it would very obviously bring tremendous value to a very large number of people all over the world, I imagine it would be fairly easy to get a lot of interested buyers to sign up for the group auction.

Right, got it, understood, but what if after all that, the creator isn't willing to sell at the offered price?

Let's say I am the creator of the movie Titanic, and all of the early adopters are convinced that it isn't going to be a big hit, so they are only willing to put up a modest amount of money. But I as the creator am convinced that it is going to be a smash hit, and I know I would be getting shafted if I settle for the modest amount.

What then? Do I as the creator have the right to reject the modest amount offered by the early adopters and take my risks in the open marketplace on my own?