Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft

[Libertarian666]

This isn't just a theoretical issue to me, by the way.

I'm currently in negotiations regarding several software inventions that I have invented over the last several years. I believe they are major because they enable the efficient use of new hardware technology.

Right now we're getting ready to interview a patent attorney to decide whether we want to continue with a patent application I have submitted but which hasn't been examined yet.

The main reason we wouldn't want to continue with it is that as another consulting patent attorney said, if I tell people how I do it (needed for a patent application) I'll get them thinking along the same lines as I have been. Then they can probably figure out a non-infringing method of doing essentially the same thing.

As it stands now, I don't believe anyone else is thinking along those lines, and one of the most fundamental parts of my approach is considered impossible by experts. So perhaps trade secret protection would be our best bet.

[Libertarian666]

For anyone here who would like to read an extended and serious debate about IP, message me and I'll send you a gift copy of Origitent (https://www.amazon.com/Origitent-Why-Or ... B07DRQ9NWC). This offer is good for up to 90 copies in total, one per person.

Is that you? Did you write that book? I must admit I had never heard of it, and was confused by the title combined with the fact that Kinsella had written the Forward to the book. So then I had to Google that and found this:

“Introduction” to J. Neil Schulman’s Origitent: Why Original Content is Property
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2018/06/ ... origitent/

So, apparently the title is accurate, but Kinsella's writing of the Forward is not to be interpreted as Kinsella agreeing with it.

In any case, I'd be happy to take you up on your offer. Thanks in advance!

Yes, I'm one of the contributors. Message me and I'll get you a copy.

[CT-Scott]

This isn't just a theoretical issue to me, by the way.

I'm currently in negotiations regarding several software inventions that I have invented over the last several years. I believe they are major because they enable the efficient use of new hardware technology.

Right, so no offense, but you're also coming from a biased position, seeing as you believe that you would profit more by having IP laws enforced for your particular idea/invention. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a software developer and "creative", so I get the pull that people like us feel towards wanting to justify IP rights.

[nskinsella]

I guess I need to check out Kinsella. Where can I steal his book? I’m kidding. I would guess it’s freely available.

Steal This Book by Hoffman, Abbie; Haber, Izack; Forcade, Tom; Cohen, Bert Published by Pirate Editions, Grove Press 7th (seventh) Printing edition (1971) Mass Market Paperback Mass Market Paperback

https://smile.amazon.com/Steal-This-Boo ... l_huc_item

Vinny

Actually I plan to write a new book on my IP views, with the title "Copy This Book". Inspired in part by Hoffman's title.

I just registered at a friend's suggestion; happy to field any questions. BTW re pharmaceutical IP issues I would recommend chapter 9 of B&L's book Against Intellectual Monopoly-- they do a good job of exploding lots of myths about pharma patents. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intelle ... tfinal.htm

[Libertarian666]

This isn't just a theoretical issue to me, by the way.

I'm currently in negotiations regarding several software inventions that I have invented over the last several years. I believe they are major because they enable the efficient use of new hardware technology.

Right, so no offense, but you're also coming from a biased position, seeing as you believe that you would profit more by having IP laws enforced for your particular idea/invention. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a software developer and "creative", so I get the pull that people like us feel towards wanting to justify IP rights.

I've been a software developer since before that term was invented.
My position used to be very similar to yours even though it was against my interests.
I haven't changed my position because my new position is in line with my interests: I changed it because I was convinced that my previous position was both illogical and morally wrong.

You'll see my reasoning if you read the book.

[dualstow]

This isn't just a theoretical issue to me, by the way.

I'm currently in negotiations regarding several software inventions that I have invented over the last several years. I believe they are major because they enable the efficient use of new hardware technology.

Right, so no offense, but you're also coming from a biased position, seeing as you believe that you would profit more by having IP laws enforced for your particular idea/invention. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a software developer and "creative", so I get the pull that people like us feel towards wanting to justify IP rights.

But beyond that, protecting IP just seems fair. All law is manmade and there are always competing interestings- protecting one person’s right may feel like violating another’s.

if you prevent someone from shouting the N-word at little kids in the park, he may feel his right to free speech is being trampled on, no matter what specific stipulations are in the code. I wouldn’t want to defend him and — I know, everything is tricky and complicated and nuanced — I don’t really feel someone who rented a movie and decided to keep it forever is having their rights violated when they’re told not to keep it.

I definitely understand your viewpoint now. Thank you for typing all that, Scott! (the whole thread, I mean)

[nskinsella]

For anyone here who would like to read an extended and serious debate about IP, message me and I'll send you a gift copy of Origitent (https://www.amazon.com/Origitent-Why-Or ... B07DRQ9NWC). This offer is good for up to 90 copies in total, one per person.

Is that you? Did you write that book? I must admit I had never heard of it, and was confused by the title combined with the fact that Kinsella had written the Forward to the book. So then I had to Google that and found this:

“Introduction” to J. Neil Schulman’s Origitent: Why Original Content is Property
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2018/06/ ... origitent/

So, apparently the title is accurate, but Kinsella's writing of the Forward is not to be interpreted as Kinsella agreeing with it.

In any case, I'd be happy to take you up on your offer. Thanks in advance!

Yes, I'm one of the contributors. Message me and I'll get you a copy.

to the other comment earlier--Neil and I were old friends--since the mid or late 80s. We agreed on many libertarian issues but always had strong disagreements on the IP issue. He published our interchange on this issue, and also the criticisms of him by another old and mutual friend, Wendy McElroy, in his book Origitent. He asked me to write the Foreword/Introduction, so I did. I post that Foreword and our chapter here
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2018/06/ ... origitent/

[nskinsella]

This isn't just a theoretical issue to me, by the way.

I'm currently in negotiations regarding several software inventions that I have invented over the last several years. I believe they are major because they enable the efficient use of new hardware technology.

Right, so no offense, but you're also coming from a biased position, seeing as you believe that you would profit more by having IP laws enforced for your particular idea/invention. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a software developer and "creative", so I get the pull that people like us feel towards wanting to justify IP rights.

But beyond that, protecting IP just seems fair. All law is manmade and there are always competing interestings- protecting one person’s right may feel like violating another’s.

Ultimately this is the only "argument" for IP-that it "feels fair." But I'm sure you realize this is really not much of an argument, nor is saying "well all law is manmade" anyway so this is just another one of those. I mean that kind of argument could justify the most horrific laws, like "Jews should be rounded up" or "Africans can be enslaved".

Ultimately, *every* case for IP is bad. I'm a patent lawyer and have been a libertarian theorist for a long time, so I understand both the ethics and politics and economics of the entire issue of law and property rights, plus I understand the IP legal system very well. I can assure you that after many, many years of closely studying this issue, I am 100% persuaded that all IP law--most especially patent and copyright--are completely unjust, and harmful. There really are NO good arguments for IP. I briefly discuss this here http://c4sif.org/2010/12/there-are-no-g ... -property/

As for the earlier comment about "who would build the roads" -- I think the author has in mind something like this: if I argue that slavery is wrong, and show why it's immoral and unjust, it would not be a reasonable reply to retort "but who will pick the cotton?" I mean the question is either not serious, i.e. it's rhetorical, ... or it's monstrous, implying that we can't free the slaves until someone guarantees that and explains exactly how cotton will be picked without slavery. For more on this see my 2015 PFS talk KOL190 | On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (PFS 2015) http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podc ... -pfs-2015/

***

For people really interested in this issue, I'm happy to field questions, or even talk on the phone/skype. Or you could check out some resources I have here http://c4sif.org/resources/ including "A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP".

[nskinsella]

But beyond that, protecting IP just seems fair. All law is manmade and there are always competing interestings- protecting one person’s right may feel like violating another’s.

One more point about this "IP just seems fair" way of thinking about it. You have to think about who the burden of proof is on. Patent and copyright are artificial--they are creatures of legislation. Without IP legislation (the patent and copyright acts, enacted first right after the US was founded, in 1790). So the question is: who is the burden of proof on? someone who wants to abolish a law, or someone who wants to preserve one? I think that if a law would not exist without legislation--that is, if it would not emerge out of natural rights, common law, custom, and so on, and has to be created by dictate of the king or sovereign or legislature (Congress, in our case)--and especially if it violates property rights and natural rights and civil liberties (the IP laws do; even the Courts admit that copyright is a type of censorship that is incompatible with the First Amendment and freedom of speech, and patents are also artificial "privileges" or "monopolies" that restrict others' natural rights and impede free market competition), then the burden is on the proponent of these laws to justify them.
And no one ever has. Every single argument I have ever heard for IP is either incoherent or deeply flawed and mangled. And saying "it just seems fair" is not a serious argument, I'm sure you realize this.

And if you understand a bit about the history of how patent and copyright arose, and the history of the expansion of IP law in the 20th century, this becomes even clearer. Check out for examle Karl Fogel's The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World https://questioncopyright.org/promise . And if you understand how copyright literally jails people (poor Aaron Swartz, RSS creator, killed himself when faced with decades in federal prison for uploading academic papers to the internet) and patents literally kill people, and how the patent and copyright scope, enforcement, penalties, and especially copyright terms have ballooned (from 14 years to over 100 now), you'll see that these laws are utterly destructive and out of control. They are totally contrary to property rights, civil liberties, Internet freedom, free markets, liberalism, capitalism. They limit ideas, distort culture, threaten freedom on the Internet, protect entrenched industries, impede innovation and learning and scientific discovery... other than that, IP is wonderful, after all, it "seems fair".

[Libertarian666]

Every single argument I have ever heard for IP is either incoherent or deeply flawed and mangled.

I'll be interested to see what the members of this forum think about that after they have read both sides of the argument in Origitent, including your arguments there.

[CT-Scott]

I've been a software developer since before that term was invented.

I'm not sure if this comment was meant to imply some greater experience-level on your part, or not. I'll try not to read into that too much, other than to say that I graduated with my Computer Science degree back in 1993, so I've been in the profession "long enough" that I don't think it matters much if you have been in the field longer than me. I also wouldn't discount your opinions any more/less if you were in that field for fewer years than me. I put more value in whether the arguments themselves are convincing. Thanks again for the free ebook...as I said in my PM, I'll try to give it a read sooner rather than later. I've never been much of a "book reader" as I can have a short attention span and a lot of varying interests...I've always been more interested in reading short articles, which might seem odd given how verbose I am when writing.

One last aside about the term "Software Developer"...The official job title I have at my present employer is "Software Engineer" but despite being fairly advanced at math in school, I personally prefer terms like "Software Developer" or Software/Solutions Designer for myself, as I'm more enthusiastic about coming up with ideas and solutions that I can solve via software. I also think it better conveys my creative/UI/UX/graphic design skills & interests. Others I work with are more passionate about optimizing performance. For them, the term "Software Engineer" is probably a more apt title, IMO. Meanwhile, there are actually a lot of Electrical Engineers and other people in the "Engineer" category who take offense to anyone on the software side using the term "Engineer." But I digress...

[Libertarian666]

I've been a software developer since before that term was invented.

I'm not sure if this comment was meant to imply some greater experience-level on your part, or not. I'll try not to read into that too much, other than to say that I graduated with my Computer Science degree back in 1993, so I've been in the profession "long enough" that I don't think it matters much if you have been in the field longer than me. I also wouldn't discount your opinions any more/less if you were in that field for fewer years than me. I put more value in whether the arguments themselves are convincing. Thanks again for the free ebook...as I said in my PM, I'll try to give it a read sooner rather than later. I've never been much of a "book reader" as I can have a short attention span and a lot of varying interests...I've always been more interested in reading short articles, which might seem odd given how verbose I am when writing.

One last aside about the term "Software Developer"...The official job title I have at my present employer is "Software Engineer" but despite being fairly advanced at math in school, I personally prefer terms like "Software Developer" or Software/Solutions Designer for myself, as I'm more enthusiastic about coming up with ideas and solutions that I can solve via software. I also think it better conveys my creative/UI/UX/graphic design skills & interests. Others I work with are more passionate about optimizing performance. For them, the term "Software Engineer" is probably a more apt title, IMO. Meanwhile, there are actually a lot of Electrical Engineers and other people in the "Engineer" category who take offense to anyone on the software side using the term "Engineer." But I digress...

I wrote my first program in 1965. Last year I celebrated the 50th anniversary of my first job where I was paid to write programs.
Of course that doesn't mean that my opinions are more meaningful than yours.
My point was only that my opinions on IP were similar to yours for a long time until I was shown that they were incorrect by logical argument, not by self-interest.

[dualstow]

@nkinsella
Thank you for the response, Mr K. I am reading with interest. As it happens, I just got my wine delivery and it’s been ten days since I had a drink, so I probably won’t reply tonight. But, I appreciate it, and I am reading.

[Mark Leavy]

As it stands now, I don't believe anyone else is thinking along those lines, and one of the most fundamental parts of my approach is considered impossible by experts. So perhaps trade secret protection would be our best bet.

You can take this for whatever it's worth, but if you are actually going to monetize this product - as in selling some software or hardware, I would 100% stick with trade secret.

Patents are valuable if you are forming a company that you intend to sell. There, patents are for the benefit of the acquiring company. They provide return fire in case someone else tries to sue for infringement and they ensure the acquiring company that you hold the rights free and clear.

If you're just going to do business, patents are a waste of time and money. And, as you said, your competitors will read them and good engineers will figure out how to do essentially the same thing without infringing.

[Mark Leavy]

Every single argument I have ever heard for IP is either incoherent or deeply flawed and mangled.

I'll be interested to see what the members of this forum think about that after they have read both sides of the argument in Origitent, including your arguments there.

I think humans will always come up with a reason to justify what they want to do anyway. And they'll make it sound right and moral and good for the children.

Trade Secret any inventions. And if that is not possible, use every trick you can to slow down the self-serving thieves. They aren't going to do the right thing on their own.

[dualstow]

Ultimately this is the only "argument" for IP-that it "feels fair." But I'm sure you realize this is really not much of an argument, nor is saying "well all law is manmade"

Of course. I wasn’t writing a Supreme Court decision and I didn’t know you were coming on board. I was just casually stating something on a forum. But, I come to it with an open mind. For what it’s worth, my brother is a patent attorney, and I’ve always been on the other side of it, being chided by him for my IP transgressions.

I stand to learn a lot from both you and Libertarian666, who have both obviously been at this for some time.

[Libertarian666]

As it stands now, I don't believe anyone else is thinking along those lines, and one of the most fundamental parts of my approach is considered impossible by experts. So perhaps trade secret protection would be our best bet.

You can take this for whatever it's worth, but if you are actually going to monetize this product - as in selling some software or hardware, I would 100% stick with trade secret.

Patents are valuable if you are forming a company that you intend to sell. There, patents are for the benefit of the acquiring company. They provide return fire in case someone else tries to sue for infringement and they ensure the acquiring company that you hold the rights free and clear.

If you're just going to do business, patents are a waste of time and money. And, as you said, your competitors will read them and good engineers will figure out how to do essentially the same thing without infringing.

The current plan is to form a company and sell the IP to one of a couple of identified customers.
But we haven't made the determination whether it would be better to keep it a trade secret rather than go for a patent.
Making that determination is the next step in the business plan.

[Mark Leavy]

The current plan is to form a company and sell the IP to one of a couple of identified customers.
But we haven't made the determination whether it would be better to keep it a trade secret rather than go for a patent.
Making that determination is the next step in the business plan.

The patent might be necessary then. Either way, it sounds like you have good counsel.

[Mark Leavy]

And one more comment on my earlier rant on IP theft...

I don't think it matters one way or another whether we can all come to agreement on what is right or wrong or moral or immoral. It's irrelevant. Morality and legality don't even factor in.

I fully acknowledge the right of low life scum to try and steal stuff from me. Hey, baby needs new shoes... I'm not judging. You low life scum.

But I don't have to make it easy for you. Lock that shit up.

[CT-Scott]

And one more comment on my earlier rant on IP theft...

I don't think it matters one way or another whether we can all come to agreement on what is right or wrong or moral or immoral. It's irrelevant. Morality and legality don't even factor in.

I fully acknowledge the right of low life scum to try and steal stuff from me. Hey, baby needs new shoes... I'm not judging. You low life scum.

You've lost me a bit. I *do* think it's important to try to peacefully convince someone of the morality of an issue, if you think their position is immoral. I also don't think anyone would/should say that low life scum have a "right" to steal from someone. That seems like an odd use of the term "right."

But I don't have to make it easy for you. Lock that shit up.

As it relates to ideas/inventions/software, I completely agree that one way for someone who wants to profit off of some software they've developed would be to "lock it up" (e.g., via some form of copy protection). Some other approaches would include offering frequent, useful, and free updates, such that it would be in a person's best interest to be a legitimate customer of yours and have easy access to those updates. If the software is complicated, a members-only support forum is another idea. There are plenty of ways that you can encourage people to buy your software, rather than try to "steal" it.

That said, you also don't want to spend more time trying to improve your copy protection than you're spending improving the software itself, or else you have your priorities backwards, IMO.

[Mountaineer]

In order to decide if something is moral or not, one needs a source of absolute right and wrong that almost everyone agrees upon. What is that in this case?

[Mark Leavy]

And one more comment on my earlier rant on IP theft...

I don't think it matters one way or another whether we can all come to agreement on what is right or wrong or moral or immoral. It's irrelevant. Morality and legality don't even factor in.

I fully acknowledge the right of low life scum to try and steal stuff from me. Hey, baby needs new shoes... I'm not judging. You low life scum.

You've lost me a bit. I *do* think it's important to try to peacefully convince someone of the morality of an issue, if you think their position is immoral. I also don't think anyone would/should say that low life scum have a "right" to steal from someone. That seems like an odd use of the term "right."

But I don't have to make it easy for you. Lock that shit up.

As it relates to ideas/inventions/software, I completely agree that one way for someone who wants to profit off of some software they've developed would be to "lock it up" (e.g., via some form of copy protection). Some other approaches would include offering frequent, useful, and free updates, such that it would be in a person's best interest to be a legitimate customer of yours and have easy access to those updates. If the software is complicated, a members-only support forum is another idea. There are plenty of ways that you can encourage people to buy your software, rather than try to "steal" it.

That said, you also don't want to spend more time trying to improve your copy protection than you're spending improving the software itself, or else you have your priorities backwards, IMO.

I use "right" in the same way Harry Browne did. As in they don't exist in any form. The only "rights" you have are the ones you have power or influence to make happen. Thus, knowing that I can't prevent thieves from trying to steal, I acknowledge that this is part of the real world we live in. It is ridiculous for me to argue that they shoudn't do that. They WILL do that. The only reasonable thing for me to do is to throw in roadblocks.

And, yes, any decent business person will calculate the tradeoffs. How much resource to put into copy protection versus how much to put into accelerated innovation versus how much to punch back with lawyers, etc. That goes without saying. Business 101.

[CT-Scott]

I use "right" in the same way Harry Browne did. As in they don't exist in any form. The only "rights" you have are the ones you have power or influence to make happen. Thus, knowing that I can't prevent thieves from trying to steal, I acknowledge that this is part of the real world we live in. It is ridiculous for me to argue that they shoudn't do that. They WILL do that.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Despite having read HB's PP book many years ago and being a member of this forum, I am not particularly well-read on much of anything else HB has written or said. I'll have to do some more Googling/reading to read more on his perspective on that.

My personal beliefs, based largely on my personal Christian beliefs, do put some value in the concept of "rights" as being a "thing" worth discussing/debating, though I try to use the term "natural rights", as I want to be inclusive of non-Christians and find common ground on the topic.

[Libertarian666]

In order to decide if something is moral or not, one needs a source of absolute right and wrong that almost everyone agrees upon. What is that in this case?

I can think of only one moral rule that almost everyone agrees upon: The Golden Rule.

[Libertarian666]

The current plan is to form a company and sell the IP to one of a couple of identified customers.
But we haven't made the determination whether it would be better to keep it a trade secret rather than go for a patent.
Making that determination is the next step in the business plan.

The patent might be necessary then. Either way, it sounds like you have good counsel.

I think so, and it's pretty important because this IP could be extremely valuable.