Gyroscopic Investing

Beats me, but I can certainly picture that someone would try to act endearing for a public video, but in actuality may not be quite so endearing, which could be seen in an obscure chat forum or whatever you call this place.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:20 pm Beats me, but I can certainly picture that someone would try to act endearing for a public video, but in actuality may not be quite so endearing, which could be seen in an obscure chat forum or whatever you call this place.

That's true, and the purple bowtie man was already on his side. Maybe I just don't want to believe it's really him.

You know, people come and go on forums, and sometimes they are truly vicious, but this guy's not. He's comical. Every once in a while, someone comes along with such crazy lines that you don't even need to say something clever back. You just watch the spectacle. This is that guy. "I'm the foremost expert on the planet." C'mon. Can you picture Anthony Fauci having a rant and saying that line?

I listened to part of a podcast he did with someone, maybe Tom Woods. He said something very similar in the podcast, so I wasn't as surprised to see it here. But you are totally right. It's just a comical statement to make about yourself. Even if it's true, you don't want to be the one making that statement. It seems very socially awkward to me, but what do I know?

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:08 pm I'm going to say something controversial. I don't think this is really Stephan Kinsella. First of all, he has an N at the beginning of his name.
Secondly, I saw some of his videos. This cannot be the pudgy, bald, bespectacled guy who happily takes questions from the man in the purple bowtie in 2015. That guy looks like he's about to announce that he's getting back behind the drums and even reuniting with Peter Gabriel for a GABACAB 2020.

Granted, Libertarians don't know how to market. They remind me of Linux adherents in that regard. But they are clumsy in an endearing way. They aren't like this. Unless he had a meltdown sometime between 2015 and now. Think about it.

Scott, I think we've been duped, especially if you invited the real Mr Kinsella in a public space when you asked him to sign up.

This is just some pro-IP guy trying to make the real man look unstable.

No, I'm pretty sure it's really him. Stephan is his middle name.
And he really is that arrogant and out-of touch.

not being the foremost expert on how to communicate an idea and convince people your arguments are sound, without insulting your reader, could end up getting a persons chance to make their case cut off.. by the worlds foremost expert on forum moderation...

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:44 pm If you get on the freeway and find that all these idiots are driving in the wrong direction, do you ever wonder why that is?

https://youtu.be/DfkT3ngH08s

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:56 am

nskinsella wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:17 am Except you peopel can't seem to be honest and fair in representing others' views. I never said "I don't mind" trolls. I simply said they are the least of the problem

You said they were like a small tax and I lumped you in with Scott, who said they are “a good thing.” Kind of the way you lump us all together as having no idea what we’re talking about.

Dude, *most people* don't understand IP law, much less arguments for and against it. And I doubt Scott said trolls are a good thing. In any case, the problem is not patent trolls. The problem is really not even other people who hold patents. It's the patent system itself. It's sort of like--for those of us who oppose welfare, the problem is not the people who sign up to get it. If you put out free slop in a trough, pigs will come eat it. the pigs are not the problem.

When Scott invited you to register, how did you think this was going to go down?

Exactly as it has. I have done this many times over the years. This isn't my first rodeo.

When I take time to carefully explain things and provide links, I am used to encountering literally stupid arguments in return and ignorance and hostility. I take the time to do it not for the sake of my stubborn, proudly ignorant interlocutors, but for those lurking and listening. On occasion one of them has been reached. I can't tell you how many times over the years someone has emailed me or met me at a conference and told me how I opened their eyes or changed their mind. I've even on occasion had my opponent change their mind and admit I was right.

That we would all spend several years studying law and your documents and then get back to you? Or that we would all already have law degrees under our belt? Or that we would just accept your point of view that the IP system is immoral without questions?

None of this, esp. not the former, which I would not want. I thought there might be a few people either participating, or lurking, who would stop and think and maybe realize they happen to temporarily have a world-class expert on this topic participating in this thread, and take the chance to ask questions or have me clarify some things. That's the best case. And I have provided links to my online articles, books, speeches, lectures for those who might want to inquire more deeply on their own. No one can say I haven't tried hard to explain my perspective, and make tons of material available for free.

The person who asked had thought his question, at worst, would reveal a deeper ignorance of the whole system, and the answerer would say, ‘Well, the question you really want to ask is ... because ...”
And the questioner starts to learn something.

That's not a bad suggestion. But I've of course tried this tactic before, and then you get accused of being arrogant, putting words in people's mouths, etc. You just can't win with some people--they are basically engaged in a tendentious argument not a sincere one--they just want to argue for their conclusion, like an advocate in court. This is not my approach nor how I came to my views. As I said, I actually tried to find a good argument for IP and finally was led by the reasoning and evidence and a deeper understanding of how IP works and the nature of property rights and justice, to conclude that IP is totally unjust.

That’s how I thought it would go here, because that’s how it usually goes. You, on the other hand, spend up to 90% of your words telling us that not only are we clueless, but we also have no idea just how clueless we are. Is that really how you want to spend your time?

Notice how this is just now a boring discussion of a personal or meta-issue. It's got nothing to do with the issue of whether IP law is justified. That's what annoys people about me sometimes--I always return to the main issue.

It seems like you’re tearing your hair out in frustration that we haven’t just fallen into line when, outside of the forum, the real world hasn’t fallen into line either. (That’s not to say that the world is right. You’ve already complained about the status quo argument and how it’s wrong. Fine).

I'm not frustrated at all. I'm used to this hostile reaction. I've been doing this for 25 years dude.

I accidentally learned something about patent trolls, or at least your view of them, because you took a break from telling us how incredibly small we are, and how vast the void of our ignorance is, to say something about patent trolls.

Correct. But as I said earlier I don't think it's practicable for me to keep repeating here what I've written already elsewhere--that's why I keep giving you links to blog posts or whatever, where I have *already* dealt with this. To be honest, at this point, it's hard to get a question our counterargument that is new-that I have not already encountered and already explained or rebutted in writing. But obviously, I remain happy to field questions. I even always offer to take a phone call or skype call from anyone who wnats to discuss the matter, say, for 30 minutes. For free. I might record it for a podcast, in case the talk is useful and others can benefit from it, but I am always willing to respond to criticism, to argument,s to answer *sincere* questions (that means: not loaded, not rhetorical, not smart-ass, not off-topic, like 'but yer a hypocrite!"). I am always patient and kind to people who are "beginners" or even ignorant of basics of law etc., as long as they are respectful and asking sincere, NON-LOADED questions. Always. BUt when someone cocks an attitude and makes personal statements about me (that are either irrelevant, or false), or keeps asserting stubbornly aguments that are totally incoherent or just factually false, even after I calmly point it out--I realize that they are not seeking a genuine discourse, and treat them accordingly. And then I expect them to feign umbrage and pretend like "I'm too arrogant" or I'm not making arguments aimed at people's "hearts and minds'--i.e., they change the subject, which people always do when they are cornered by my arguments.

By the way, I never make arguments based from authority. The fact that I actually am a patent attorney and know the law is a bonus, but it doesn't give me extra "authority" and I never would expect anyone to take what I say at my word. I mean for God's sake most patent attorneys pretend to be favor of patent law, like most postal workers are in favor of the US post office and most government school teachers are in favor of government schools. This is not surprising. They know where their bread is buttered. However, unlike them, I make arguments that are *against* my own self-interest: if the patent system were abolished (as I truly want it to be), *my entire profession* would be unemployed.

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:35 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:54 pm
I actually understand the IP system. I understand patents. I get patent trolls. I get taxes. I get it all.
You people can never ask an honest question or whatever. I don't get it.

I am am probably quite literally the greatest expert on the planet on this small set of issues and I am willing to talk with people with 1 ten thousandth the level of knowledge of me--for free. For a time. And yet... all I get is grief. It's incredible. Why not take advantage of it? Ask me anything, while I'm answering anything for free.

I get this cocky engineering attitude.

That’s how I thought it would go here, because that’s how it usually goes. You, on the other hand, spend up to 90% of your words telling us that not only are we clueless, but we also have no idea just how clueless we are."

But what if I'm right? What if you are all pontificating on something you know nothing about, you are clueless, and you are so clueless you don't know what you are talking about? What then?

I am only half-reading your blathering

THa'ts your prerogative but honestly *it's not my fucking problem*'. I've made millions of dollars (and I never exaggerate) off your little system;

I always find it amusing that hicks get offended

Anger management is in your future. For now, could you just blow back to Limerick, Ireland, eat some fried doughnuts, and be quiet, please?
Yeah, that's right. I've done my research on you. Bye.

haha. You have me confused with Stephen Kinsella. He's not me. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2013/09/ ... -i-am-not/

As for engineers etc.... I am a EE (BS and MS) but I know engineers' syndrome well--a type of logical positivism that is deeply flawed. The brute-force approach. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2007/10/ ... -syndrome/

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:40 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:20 pm Beats me, but I can certainly picture that someone would try to act endearing for a public video, but in actuality may not be quite so endearing, which could be seen in an obscure chat forum or whatever you call this place.

That's true, and the purple bowtie man was already on his side. Maybe I just don't want to believe it's really him.

You know, people come and go on forums, and sometimes they are truly vicious, but this guy's not. He's comical. Every once in a while, someone comes along with such crazy lines that you don't even need to say something clever back. You just watch the spectacle. This is that guy. "I'm the foremost expert on the planet." C'mon. Can you picture Anthony Fauci having a rant and saying that line?

i-am-not-crazy.png

i-am-not2.png

I literally don't know anyone else on the planet who knows as much as I do about IP policy combined with IP law knowledge and from a free market and libertarian-Austrian perspective as I do. I'd actually like to find one. There are 4 or 5 I could mention who come close--JEff Tucker, Roderick Long, Wendy McElroy, the old Tom Palmer, but that's about it. A few of my followers have gotten very good but mainly by listening to me--scott for example, here, is one of them. He "gets it" in a very sophistocated way. I've known a few like this. Maybe Stephen Davies. https://youtu.be/KQheHParwyw . But honestly if you can find someone who knows even 1/2 of what I know about the intersection of these areas, I'd be grateful do you. I'm not boasting. It's a bit daunting to realize I'm the best at this. I wish there was someone better. But until he comes along, I"m it. This doesn't make me money. I don't need this. I've made literally millions off of my career being a patent lawyer, and even as an author/editor of legal books (for Oceana, West Thompson, and Oxford). So believe me, I know how to milk the system. I'm good at it. But I don't make any money off of my anti-IP work--that's just my avocation, my passion, my hobby: I'm just trying to help promote economic understanding and liberty and freedom, human prosperity and innovation and freedom. But I am well aware that I know more about this IP policy intersectional view than not only anyone I've ever met, but anyone I've ever read, or even heard about. Sorry if it sounds "arrogant" to state a fact.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:46 pm I listened to part of a podcast he did with someone, maybe Tom Woods. He said something very similar in the podcast, so I wasn't as surprised to see it here. But you are totally right. It's just a comical statement to make about yourself. Even if it's true, you don't want to be the one making that statement. It seems very socially awkward to me, but what do I know?

I never use that as a boast or as an argument from authority, just like I never use my status as a professionally trained patent attorney as an argument from authority. But when someone asks a question--for example, as here, when someone says "what did you think would happen?" or "why are you here" then I can say "well... I'm a world-class expert and you people have a brief chance to ask me questions.... so ... some people are smart enough to take advantage of this." I don't really care if some of you bristle at this kind of comment. I'm used to the "arrogance" accusations, so that is going to come anyway. Meh. So what. The world goes on. I mean there is a reason the expression "pearls before swine" has lasted.

nskinsella wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:05 pmAnd I doubt Scott said trolls are a good thing. In any case, the problem is not patent trolls. The problem is really not even other people who hold patents. It's the patent system itself. It's sort of like--for those of us who oppose welfare, the problem is not the people who sign up to get it. If you put out free slop in a trough, pigs will come eat it. the pigs are not the problem.

I should probably go back and read what I actually wrote, but in case I wasn't clear enough, my position is that "patent trolls" are a good thing, not because holding patents on things they never intend to create is good, but rather because they add some amount of positive value in shining a light on the absurdity and immorality of the entire patent system. Now, I don't "admire" them in any way, because they aren't *intentionally* trying to shine a light on it, and they aren't opposed to it...they're simply looking to profit off of the system.

Similarly, I don't "admire" someone who has no desire to work but instead live off of the welfare state, but they add some positive value by way of shining a light on the system itself.

So I can appreciate whatever little positive value comes out of what they're doing, while not having much regard for the people who are doing it.

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:54 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:05 pmAnd I doubt Scott said trolls are a good thing. In any case, the problem is not patent trolls. The problem is really not even other people who hold patents. It's the patent system itself. It's sort of like--for those of us who oppose welfare, the problem is not the people who sign up to get it. If you put out free slop in a trough, pigs will come eat it. the pigs are not the problem.

I should probably go back and read what I actually wrote,

Firstly, I'm only seeing this because you quoted it, Scott, having put Mr Kinsella from Ireland on mute since yesterday. Mercifully, that's *all* I can see.

I think it's funny that this NSK guy feels the need to express "doubt" about something that can be found in a half second with a a Ctrl+F. Maybe that's just something dumb "fake engineers" do. (Truth be told, I'm from NY and am not an engineer).

Anyway, Scott, here's the quote

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:46 pm In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing.

So that's that.

but in case I wasn't clear enough, my position is that "patent trolls" are a good thing, not because holding patents on things they never intend to create is good, but rather because they add some amount of positive value in shining a light on the absurdity and immorality of the entire patent system. Now, I don't "admire" them in any way, because they aren't *intentionally* trying to shine a light on it, and they aren't opposed to it...they're simply looking to profit off of the system.

Similarly, I don't "admire" someone who has no desire to work but instead live off of the welfare state, but they add some positive value by way of shining a light on the system itself.

So I can appreciate whatever little positive value comes out of what they're doing, while not having much regard for the people who are doing it.

Understood.

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:54 pm

nskinsella wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:05 pmAnd I doubt Scott said trolls are a good thing. In any case, the problem is not patent trolls. The problem is really not even other people who hold patents. It's the patent system itself. It's sort of like--for those of us who oppose welfare, the problem is not the people who sign up to get it. If you put out free slop in a trough, pigs will come eat it. the pigs are not the problem.

I should probably go back and read what I actually wrote, but in case I wasn't clear enough, my position is that "patent trolls" are a good thing, not because holding patents on things they never intend to create is good, but rather because they add some amount of positive value in shining a light on the absurdity and immorality of the entire patent system. Now, I don't "admire" them in any way, because they aren't *intentionally* trying to shine a light on it, and they aren't opposed to it...they're simply looking to profit off of the system.

Similarly, I don't "admire" someone who has no desire to work but instead live off of the welfare state, but they add some positive value by way of shining a light on the system itself.

So I can appreciate whatever little positive value comes out of what they're doing, while not having much regard for the people who are doing it.

Right. Understood. The thing is, my criticism of the patent laws is not ever really a critique of the people who use the laws. the very reason we oppose bad laws, is *because those laws have effects*--that is, *because people respond to those laws*. If no one responded to a bad law, if it had no effect, there would be nothing to object to. I would not object to a law imposing a 79% income tax rate... if no one enforced it.

The harmful effects of patent law are manifest mostly in the anti-competitive effects i.e. the establishment of cartels, like the few big makers of smartphones, for example. Trolls harm too by sucking away resources from producers, but as I said, they act mostly as a small tax or regulatory cost that businesses face. When you are faced with a troll it's usually not an existential issue, just another cost. So you have all these peopel running around saying the patent system is "broken" and we need to "reform" or "fix" it by stopping patent "abuse"--i.e., the action of trolls. They are missing the issue. It's like saying that the problem with a Nazi concentration camp is they are not hiring appropriately sensitive guards.

I think this guy thinks I'm some writer in Ireland; that's a Stephen Kinsella, who is not me.

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:40 pmAnyway, Scott, here's the quote

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:46 pm In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing.

So that's that.

Well, now you got me to go back and reread what I wrote, and I see that you selectively quoted me, so I'm disappointed that you would do that. Here's more of what I wrote (which is consistent with my follow-up replies):

In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing. Because they're "working the system" (legally). Most people *hate* patent trolls, but "patent trolls" merely make it clear how stupid the entire patent system is.

Tonight I read that Salk did not seek a patent on the polio vaccine. Which I think that I already knew.

What I did not know was that he gave up $7 billion by doing that.

Vinny

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 7:08 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:40 pmAnyway, Scott, here's the quote

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:46 pm In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing.

So that's that.

Well, now you got me to go back and reread what I wrote, and I see that you selectively quoted me, so I'm disappointed that you would do that. Here's more of what I wrote (which is consistent with my follow-up replies):

In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing. Because they're "working the system" (legally). Most people *hate* patent trolls, but "patent trolls" merely make it clear how stupid the entire patent system is.

I’m sorry. I’m an extreme quote pruner because I figure people can always read the full quote upthread, as long as I include a “...” ellipses to indicate that it’s an excerpt of something longer. I didn’t mean to misrepresent you and for what it’s worth, I don’t think the extra context you provided changes anything. Maybe it does for other readers, though.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 7:21 pm Tonight I read that Salk did not seek a patent on the polio vaccine. Which I think that I already knew.

What I did not know was that he gave up $7 billion by doing that.

Vinny

Arthur C. Clarke did something similar: http://www.reallyrocketscience.com/node/915

This overall topic is especially interesting to me in the coronatimes. as I see so many parallels.

Restaurant CEO on COVID-19: 'I honestly don't see a scenario where 50% to 60% of restaurants don't close'
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/atlas-re ... 27891.html

Restaurants are getting a fraction of the business they were getting before. People are cooking similar meals at home. Does the restaurant owner deserve to be paid their desired asking price for chicken marsala when someone decides to instead make their own chicken marsala at home?

This is a very sad situation. My wife and I are foodies and spent [way too much] on going out to eat. So many great restaurants. So many waiters that we got to know over the years. The current situation is tragic. It has changed the market demand for the "products" that the restaurants have to sell.

But I'm in no way obliged to continue to buy their product, am I? Should I not be allowed to make chicken marsala at home without also, at the very least, paying my local restaurant owner for the right to recreate that chicken marsala recipe in my home?

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:44 pm This overall topic is especially interesting to me in the coronatimes. as I see so many parallels.

Restaurant CEO on COVID-19: 'I honestly don't see a scenario where 50% to 60% of restaurants don't close'
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/atlas-re ... 27891.html

Restaurants are getting a fraction of the business they were getting before. People are cooking similar meals at home. Does the restaurant owner deserve to be paid their desired asking price for chicken marsala when someone decides to instead make their own chicken marsala at home?

This is a very sad situation. My wife and I are foodies and spent [way too much] on going out to eat. So many great restaurants. So many waiters that we got to know over the years. The current situation is tragic. It has changed the market demand for the "products" that the restaurants have to sell.

But I'm in no way obliged to continue to buy their product, am I? Should I not be allowed to make chicken marsala at home without also, at the very least, paying my local restaurant owner for the right to recreate that chicken marsala recipe in my home?

Isn't the flaw in that "People are cooking similar meals at home"?

To do that requires time and work as opposed to just showing up at a restaurant and relaxing while someone else puts in the time and work.

People have always had that choice, particularly when it's cheaper just money-wise to just cook their own meals. Yet greater and greater amount of Americans have rejected that choice.

VInny

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:44 pm Restaurants are getting a fraction of the business they were getting before. People are cooking similar meals at home. Does the restaurant owner deserve to be paid their desired asking price for chicken marsala when someone decides to instead make their own chicken marsala at home?

Vinny made a good point about the convenience and service aspect of restaurants.

But even if I could perfectly cook all of the food from my favorite restaurant myself, and even if I didn't mind the time and effort involved, it still wouldn't be the same as eating at the restaurant. For me, at least half of the reason I enjoy eating at restaurants is because of my experience of the mood and ambience of the different spaces. The service, the music, the people at other tables, the smiles, the laughter, the energy, the neighborhood, the people walking by on the sidewalk. It's all part of the experience to me.

You just can't replicate most of that at your own kitchen table, even if the food is perfectly reproduced.

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:44 pm Does the restaurant owner deserve to be paid their desired asking price for chicken marsala when someone decides to instead make their own chicken marsala at home?
...
Should I not be allowed to make chicken marsala at home without also, at the very least, paying my local restaurant owner for the right to recreate that chicken marsala recipe in my home?

This is a somewhat ridiculous example. You're trying to tie it to bootleg music and movies which can be exactly reproduced at zero cost and a total required effort constituting a few button clicks. You can share those bootlegged files at the same time, leaving teenagers little reason to purchase the content.

There are a variety of reasons why applying this to restaurants will never work, including what Tortoise wrote above. One glaring reason is that your local did not invent chicken marsala.

However, if you started selling chicken marsala down the street with the name and logo of your local place, you would be shut down.
Still, if you're interested in pursuing this, give Nathan of Nathan For You a call.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks

dualstow wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 10:22 am

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:44 pm Does the restaurant owner deserve to be paid their desired asking price for chicken marsala when someone decides to instead make their own chicken marsala at home?
...
Should I not be allowed to make chicken marsala at home without also, at the very least, paying my local restaurant owner for the right to recreate that chicken marsala recipe in my home?

This is a somewhat ridiculous example. You're trying to tie it to bootleg music and movies which can be exactly reproduced at zero cost and a total required effort constituting a few button clicks. You can share those bootlegged files at the same time, leaving teenagers little reason to purchase the content.

There are a variety of reasons why applying this to restaurants will never work, including what Tortoise wrote above. One glaring reason is that your local did not invent chicken marsala.

However, if you started selling chicken marsala down the street with the name and logo of your local place, you would be shut down.
Still, if you're interested in pursuing this, give Nathan of Nathan For You a call.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks

Yes, this is another ridiculous example, among several that have been offered on this thread (I particularly laughed at the slavery analogies which were clearly supporting the reverse of what was claimed). Last time I checked, the copyright police weren't tracking me down for singing a copyrighted song in the shower where there is no commercial benefit. However, that doesn't mean that it's moral for me to upload copyrighted songs that I bought (or stole) to a service where other people can listen to them for free without paying the price asked by the artist.