4 ms·

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for you

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself so healthy debate is welcomed :) Libertarians generally believe the government should exist enough to protect individual rights. They're okay with the government getting involved to stop one person from destroying another person's life or property. Although I'm all for innovation, I think there's a certain amount of lameness when people immediately steal another person's ideas just to compete directly against them. In such cases, I think a certain amount of IP is inherent and the government merely protects rights that already exist. I certainly agree with you that once patents can be sold multiple times and non-practicing entities can sue, this idea goes right out the window and I would completely agree with you. Even when I think it's just lame to take another's original idea and use it against them, I admit that lame != illegal, which is why I think it's a hard line to draw, and I'm not entirely convinced of my own opinion here - I'm just saying I think the increased transparency would be a definite improvement.

marshray 13y ago
> When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. You call yourself a 'libertarian'?
- danielweber 13y ago
  No true Libertarian would believe X.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I described myself as "a bit of a Libertarian" because I generally agree with all major points on their platform - not because I change my opinion to match their platform. I also didn't say the government "should" step in - I said the government "does" step in - because currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use.
  - marshray 13y ago
    > currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use Is that true though? I was under the impression that if someone patented a method of, say, making a sandwich, I could be sued for performing that invention in my own house for my own personal lunch.
    - TallGuyShort 13y ago
      I might be wrong, but I was under the opposite impression. I've done a bit of googling around and I've found some fairly reliable-looking sources arguing both ways. Anybody a lawyer? :)
JamesArgo 13y ago
Why 20 years? That's entirely arbitrary. Regarding your point about commerce, and the 'lameness' of an arbitrary class of competition, libertarians should encourage economic competition. Why does it suddenly become "lame" when a competitor "steals" someone's idea? Implementation is just as important as imagination. If another guy can beat you to the market even after you have the innovator's head start, you deserve to lose.
- showerst 13y ago
  I think it's because in the modern (say, post 1900) world, many inventions that increase utility (both for individuals and for everyone as a whole) cost a ton of money to research. If your competition can instantly use that research, you may not recoup your costs, and thus have no incentive to do it in the first place. Drug patents are a clear example of this (although you might argue that altruism can also be a motive for researching drugs, in which case think jet engines or something). Both individual and global welfare are improved if the drug is researched, but it won't happen without a government incentive; a drug has to be sold well above it's cost to produce + a small margin to recoup research costs, but it's possible for the competition to copy a drug once it's out and sell it for costs + a small margin and make a big profit. 20 years is arbitrary. In theory it's the number that the people come to as the best balance of allowing costs to be recouped without unduly hurting global utility due to monopoly, in reality it's a consequence of where lobbying takes us.
  - JamesArgo 13y ago
    In general, I think patents slow innovation. My intuition is trade secrets would work well enough for most industries. It usually takes a significant amount of time to reverse engineer a product, and in doing so one might gain new insights into how said product can be improved. Drugs are an exception, I admit, but I don't think most of the innovation in medicine this century will be in easily-synthesized drugs as we understand them.
    - showerst 13y ago
      I think I agree with you, but I'm not so sure on the difficulties of reverse engineering. Small electronics are a good example to both our points; once a new device hits a factory in china it's as good as pirated (sometimes it's pirated in the same factory after hours!), but that hasn't terribly hurt the companies cranking out cheap USB drives, and companies like Apple have just moved way the up value chain. I do think they have significant use for things like engines and heavy equipment, where (everything but the metallurgy) is reversible, but they take $BN investments. Software patents (and really all 'business method') patents are total trash, if only because the USPTO can't possibly keep up with the pace, so people get patents for linked lists (in the 90s!) and shopping carts and such.
dctoedt 13y ago
> IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Whether IP should stop you from doing things for yourself is of course a matter of opinion. But the brute fact is that, in the U.S. and most of the rest of the world, IP laws do indeed prohibit you from doing a great many things for yourself, without regard to whether "commerce" is involved. (You may be thinking of the Commerce Clause of article I of the U.S. Constitution, whereas the congressional power to enact patent- and copyright laws derive from a separate provision, the Writings and Discoveries Clause, also in article I.) For example: - Patents prohibit you from, among other things, making or using the patented invention, unless you have permission of the patent owner. There are no exceptions for personal use. As a practical matter a patent owner might not bother coming after someone practicing a patent invention "for himself," but your definition of the quoted term might be different from the patent owner's definition. - Copyright law prohibits you from making or distributing copies of a copyrighted work; from creating "derivative works" based on the original work; and from publicly performing or -displaying the work (among other things). There's an exception for "fair use," but as many college students have expensively learned courtesy of the RIAA, you might not want to roll the dice on that.

marshray 13y ago

> When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. You call yourself a 'libertarian'?

danielweber 13y ago
No true Libertarian would believe X.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
I described myself as "a bit of a Libertarian" because I generally agree with all major points on their platform - not because I change my opinion to match their platform. I also didn't say the government "should" step in - I said the government "does" step in - because currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use.
- marshray 13y ago
  > currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use Is that true though? I was under the impression that if someone patented a method of, say, making a sandwich, I could be sued for performing that invention in my own house for my own personal lunch.
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    I might be wrong, but I was under the opposite impression. I've done a bit of googling around and I've found some fairly reliable-looking sources arguing both ways. Anybody a lawyer? :)

JamesArgo 13y ago

Why 20 years? That's entirely arbitrary. Regarding your point about commerce, and the 'lameness' of an arbitrary class of competition, libertarians should encourage economic competition. Why does it suddenly become "lame" when a competitor "steals" someone's idea? Implementation is just as important as imagination. If another guy can beat you to the market even after you have the innovator's head start, you deserve to lose.

showerst 13y ago
I think it's because in the modern (say, post 1900) world, many inventions that increase utility (both for individuals and for everyone as a whole) cost a ton of money to research. If your competition can instantly use that research, you may not recoup your costs, and thus have no incentive to do it in the first place. Drug patents are a clear example of this (although you might argue that altruism can also be a motive for researching drugs, in which case think jet engines or something). Both individual and global welfare are improved if the drug is researched, but it won't happen without a government incentive; a drug has to be sold well above it's cost to produce + a small margin to recoup research costs, but it's possible for the competition to copy a drug once it's out and sell it for costs + a small margin and make a big profit. 20 years is arbitrary. In theory it's the number that the people come to as the best balance of allowing costs to be recouped without unduly hurting global utility due to monopoly, in reality it's a consequence of where lobbying takes us.
- JamesArgo 13y ago
  In general, I think patents slow innovation. My intuition is trade secrets would work well enough for most industries. It usually takes a significant amount of time to reverse engineer a product, and in doing so one might gain new insights into how said product can be improved. Drugs are an exception, I admit, but I don't think most of the innovation in medicine this century will be in easily-synthesized drugs as we understand them.
  - showerst 13y ago
    I think I agree with you, but I'm not so sure on the difficulties of reverse engineering. Small electronics are a good example to both our points; once a new device hits a factory in china it's as good as pirated (sometimes it's pirated in the same factory after hours!), but that hasn't terribly hurt the companies cranking out cheap USB drives, and companies like Apple have just moved way the up value chain. I do think they have significant use for things like engines and heavy equipment, where (everything but the metallurgy) is reversible, but they take $BN investments. Software patents (and really all 'business method') patents are total trash, if only because the USPTO can't possibly keep up with the pace, so people get patents for linked lists (in the 90s!) and shopping carts and such.

dctoedt 13y ago

> IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Whether IP should stop you from doing things for yourself is of course a matter of opinion. But the brute fact is that, in the U.S. and most of the rest of the world, IP laws do indeed prohibit you from doing a great many things for yourself, without regard to whether "commerce" is involved. (You may be thinking of the Commerce Clause of article I of the U.S. Constitution, whereas the congressional power to enact patent- and copyright laws derive from a separate provision, the Writings and Discoveries Clause, also in article I.) For example: - Patents prohibit you from, among other things, making or using the patented invention, unless you have permission of the patent owner. There are no exceptions for personal use. As a practical matter a patent owner might not bother coming after someone practicing a patent invention "for himself," but your definition of the quoted term might be different from the patent owner's definition. - Copyright law prohibits you from making or distributing copies of a copyrighted work; from creating "derivative works" based on the original work; and from publicly performing or -displaying the work (among other things). There's an exception for "fair use," but as many college students have expensively learned courtesy of the RIAA, you might not want to roll the dice on that.