Another Libertarian Argument Against Patents Bites the Dust

Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago to Philosophy
248 comments | Share | Flag

Libertarians and Austrians, including such organizations as the CATO Institute, Von Mises, and the Wall Street Journal, have put forth a number of arguments against patents and intellectual property. These arguments include that ideas (an invention is not just an idea, but I will let that go) are not scarce and therefore patents are not real property rights, patents are monopolies, patents inhibit the growth of technology, patents require the use of force to enforce one’s rights, patents are not natural rights and were not recognized as so by Locke and the founders, among other arguments. I have discussed most of these arguments earlier and will put the links in below. One of their favorite fall back arguments is that patents limit what I can do with my property. For instance, a patent for an airplane (Wright brothers) keeps me from using my own wood, mechanical linkages, engine, cloth, etc. and building an airplane with ailerons (and wing warping). This according to the libertarian argument is obviously absurd. After all it is my property.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    What I was showing is the complete lack of priorities on the part of the Austrians and Libertarians. Are they really for free markets? Your comment purposely takes my comment out of context.

    The attack on patent rights are an attack on all property rights and shows the complete lack of understand of our constitution, Natural Rights, and property rights.The anti-patent crowd has successful shackled our inventors, which if you study history means were are in for severe economic times.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Stossel often plays devil's advocate so as to bring both sides of an issue into the open. He uses Socratic method of questioning to get his guests to provide the answers. Otherwise his shows would be naked propaganda rather than journalism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Then why did you bring up the issue here, if you didn't think it was all that important?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I am constantly amazed with all the real encroachments of freedom, the arbitrariness of the EPA, IRS, FCC, FDA, NSA, etc that libertarians/Austrians think this is an issue to be focused on.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 11 years ago
    What I do not understand about this, is why patents inspire consequential arguments among objectivists and libertarians today.

    There are significant, immediate real problems requiring unification. This is like Orthodoxy.

    When this is the biggest problem we all face, I vow to give up all my present, hard-won, but difficult to capitalize upon, patents to whomever remains to remind me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Theoretical issues such as the morality of patents are important, and we can't simply shelve debate on such issues until we achieve something resembling a free market. We need to multitask - unite on promoting issues we agree on, while continuing to have a healthy internal debate on issues that divide us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    There is nothing to say but "Je mon fiche.", and French is the best way to say it.

    In the trivial case we argue, we are duplicating property (interesting concept), absolutely not to be confused with copyright protection.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    rozpierre, lol, db is french....I'm watching. no hard feelings though? this is over ideas, right?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It is not a monopoly. It is a property right. The article shows 5 ways to Sunday that patents are not monopolies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    As I explained multiple times in the post, this is straw man argument. If the patent is published, the second person is nothing but a second hander who did not do his research at best or more likely is a liar. The near simultaneous inventor almost never happens. The USPTO had a procedure for this for over 150 years and it rarely occurred. If the first person keeps the invention, this is provided for in the patent laws.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    DB is right; however, if practiced for purely personal use, a patent monopoly is unlikely to be pursued or even have a legal avenue for pursuit; therefore, your concept of non patents regarding personal use is practical, if not precisely legal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    We've had this discussion before. Is an idea the property of the individual? Certainly. But, can the same idea be generated in more than one individual? I say yes. And thus, the ability to honor the right to multiple individuals must be part of a system of private ownership.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    rozar,
    you are refusing to acknowledge the product of an individual mind and recognizing the creator. pretty shocking to me. I'm headed over to take your vehicle and everything in your bank account.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by starguy 11 years ago
    "For instance, a patent for an airplane (Wright brothers) keeps me from using my own wood, mechanical linkages, engine, cloth, etc. and building an airplane with ailerons (and wing warping). This according to the libertarian argument is obviously absurd."

    Perhaps you might wish to read up on your history, because the Wright Brothers did sue Glenn Curtiss, over just such an issue: Curtis invented the aileron, and the Wrights decided that their patent covered EVERY flying machine, for the life of their patent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    And Curtis deserved to be sued. The patent was clear and it was clear that the Wright brothers had invented control surfaces, whether wing warping or ailerons. Curtis was just a second hander and you are defending him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You can tell K that she's certainly free to start such a post. Not sure that I have the time anymore to do so.

    Anarcho libertarians (capitalists) fail to take into account that in any age (going back to the ancient Greeks) there have been the uber-rich that can create mechanisms of force (be they armies or weapons) that can dominate their fellow man. This has increased in capability and expanse over time and requires that there be a protection mechanism to prevent such a dominance. With, perhaps, that one exception, I think the remainder of their proposals have merit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    But that is fallacious. No libertarian of any honesty would argue that a person can violate the liberty of another person. When you get to IP, yes, there are different opinions. And the argument about ideas being unlimited is a valid one. You might be better in finding a workable solution instead of just digging in your heels that your position is the only one that is right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, since they are not a monolithic block, I might say that individually they are quite precise but in the aggregate, a bit less so.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo