Capitalism and Patent Rights. Is it a contradiction?

[originalthought]

In a ture capitalist society, would patent rights exist? Can someone say they are a capitalist and also say they beleive in patent rights?

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

If you are a true capitalist, and believe that the economy should be free from government interference, can you advoacte for patent laws without it being a contradiction?

Patent laws come from the government. Therefore, you would be introducing laws that interfere with the economy, thus the system would no longer truly be capitalist.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In a pure capitalist society, would patent rights exist?

No.

Can someone say they are a capitalist and also say they beleive in patent rights?

They can say that. But what they really mean is they wish to have the state protect them from competition.

If you are a true capitalist, and believe that the economy should be free from government interference, can you advoacte for patent laws without it being a contradiction?

No.

 

[Pennywise]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

 

[originalthought]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

The statement that there is a limited role for government is your opinion, and it does not belong in this thread.

The question here is, can a capitalist say they support patent rights? Capitalism, in it's true form, is an economy ran with out interference from the state.

 

[Pennywise]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

The statement that there is a limited role for government is your opinion, and it does not belong in this thread.

The question here is, can a capitalist say they support patent rights? Capitalism, in it's true form, is an economy ran with out interference from the state.

Stealing a man's intellectual property (patent) is theft just as much as it is theft to rob a man at gunpoint. It's a legal issue, not a capitalism issue.

 

[Sallow]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

The statement that there is a limited role for government is your opinion, and it does not belong in this thread.

The question here is, can a capitalist say they support patent rights? Capitalism, in it's true form, is an economy ran with out interference from the state.

Depends on what you mean by "Capitalism".

It's alot like saying "Fire".

No one really wants a "Forest Fire".

But people seem to like "Camp Fires".

 

[L.K.Eder]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

The statement that there is a limited role for government is your opinion, and it does not belong in this thread.

The question here is, can a capitalist say they support patent rights? Capitalism, in it's true form, is an economy ran with out interference from the state.

that anarcho-capitalism is capitalism in its true form is your opinion.

but even anarcho-capitalists have trouble in dismissing IP rights.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

there is a distinct difference between patent laws and copyright laws. Are we talking about patent laws, or intellectual property on the whole here?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

The statement that there is a limited role for government is your opinion, and it does not belong in this thread.

The question here is, can a capitalist say they support patent rights? Capitalism, in it's true form, is an economy ran with out interference from the state.

that anarcho-capitalism is capitalism in its true form is your opinion.

but even anarcho-capitalists have trouble in dismissing IP rights.

No they do not.

 

[Sallow]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

The statement that there is a limited role for government is your opinion, and it does not belong in this thread.

The question here is, can a capitalist say they support patent rights? Capitalism, in it's true form, is an economy ran with out interference from the state.

Stealing a man's intellectual property (patent) is theft just as much as it is theft to rob a man at gunpoint. It's a legal issue, not a capitalism issue.

Capitalism, depending on the type of Capitalism you are talking about, is very dependent on a Legal system.

 

[Pennywise]

There is always a limited role for government. A patent is not about capitalism, it's about invention protection, much like intellectual property protections. I can't steal RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK as a story, because I did not invent it.

Patents are necessary, otherwise art, music, movies, books, etc. are free for any asshole to plagiarize on a whim, which is in fact THEFT of another man's property. Patents are perfectly in keeping with a free market.

there is a distinct difference between patent laws and copyright laws. Are we talking about patent laws, or intellectual property on the whole here?

As far as logic dictates they are one in the same. A man creates something (widget, story, etc) and registers it as his creation. But one must be proactive to continue to protect their property, otherwise a copyright will eventually fall into public domain.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

IP is always in direct opposition to real material property rights.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Copyright by contractAccording to Murray Rothbard, only activities which are not consonant with the free market would be outlawed by the market. In terms of copyright, when a person writes a work and imprints "copyright" on it, he sells it on condition that the buyer not reproduce the work for sale. By buying the copyrighted work, the buyer implicitly agrees to this condition and is contractually obligated to uphold it. Patents that go beyond this restriction of the copyright contract to prevent people who independently arrive at the same invention from using and selling that invention are punishing an act that is not implicit theft, and hence would not be outlawed by the free market; thus, patents become a state grant of exclusive monopoly privilege, incompatible with the free market. [11]

[edit] Arguments against intellectual property[edit] Ethical and natural rights argumentsStephan Kinsella's seminal article, Against Intellectual Property outlines the modern libertarian case against all forms of intellectual property.[12] Kinsella's paper focuses on the unethical nature of intellectual property rights. They are always in opposition to real material property rights. They are a straightforward government grant of monopoly to a favored producer.

Some libertarian proponents of IP argue that certain ideas deserve protection as property rights because they are created. Rand supported patents and copyrights as "the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind." For Rand, IP rights are, in a sense, the reward for productive work. It is only fair that a creator reap the benefits of others using his creation. For this reason, in part, she opposes perpetual patent and copyright—because future, unborn heirs of the original creator are not themselves responsible for the creation of their ancestors’ work.

One problem with the creation-based approach is that it almost invariably protects only certain types of creations. But the distinction between the protectable and the unprotectable is necessarily arbitrary. For example, philosophical or mathematical or scientific truths cannot be protected under current law on the grounds that commerce and social intercourse would grind to a halt were every new phrase, philosophical truth, and the like considered the exclusive property of its creator. For this reason, patents can be obtained only for so-called "practical applications" of ideas, but not for more abstract or theoretical ideas.

But the distinction between creation and discovery is not clearcut or rigorous. Nor is it clear why such a distinction, even if clear, is ethically relevant in defining property rights. No one creates matter; they just manipulate and grapple with it according to physical laws. In this sense, no one really creates anything. They merely rearrange matter into new arrangements and patterns.

It is arbitrary and unfair to reward more practical inventors and entertainment providers, such as the engineer and songwriter, and to leave more theoretical science and math researchers and philosophers unrewarded. The distinction is inherently vague, arbitrary, and unjust.

Moreover, adopting a limited term for IP rights, as opposed to a perpetual right, also requires arbitrary rules. For example, patents last for twenty years from the filing date, while copyrights last, in the case of individual authors, for seventy years past the author’s death. No one can seriously maintain that nineteen years for a patent is too short, and twenty-one years too long, any more than the current price for a gallon of milk can be objectively classified as too low or too high.[13]

[edit] UtilitarianUtilitarians hold that the "end" of encouraging more innovation and creativity justifies the seemingly immoral "means" of restricting the freedom of individuals to use their physical property as they see fit.

Kinsella points out three fundamental problems with justifying any right or law on strictly utilitarian grounds:

1.First, let us suppose that wealth or utility could be maximized by adopting certain legal rules; the "size of the pie" is increased. Even then, this does not show that these rules are justified. For example, one could argue that net utility is enhanced by redistributing half of the wealth of society’s richest one percent to its poorest ten percent. But even if stealing some of A’s property and giving it to B increases B’s welfare "more" than it diminishes A’s (if such a comparison could, somehow, be made), this does not establish that the theft of A’s property is justified. Wealth maximization is not the goal of law; rather, the goal is justice—giving each man his due. Even if overall wealth is increased due to IP laws, it does not follow that this allegedly desirable result justifies the unethical violation of some individuals’ rights to use their own property as they see fit.
2.In addition to ethical problems, utilitarianism is not coherent. It necessarily involves making illegitimate interpersonal utility comparisons, as when the "costs" of IP laws are subtracted from the "benefits" to determine whether such laws are a net benefit. But not all values have a market price; in fact, none of them do. Mises showed that even for goods that have a market price, the price does not serve as a measure of the good’s value.
3.Finally, even if the other problems are set aside, it is not at all clear that IP laws lead to any change—either an increase or a decrease—in overall wealth. It is debatable whether copyrights and patents really are necessary to encourage the production of creative works and inventions, or that the incremental gains in innovation outweigh the immense costs of an IP system. Econometric studies do not conclusively show net gains in wealth. Perhaps there would even be more innovation if there were no patent laws; maybe more money for research and development (R&D) would be available if it were not being spent on patents and lawsuits. It is possible that companies would have an even greater incentive to innovate if they could not rely on a near twenty-year monopoly.[9]

Since advocates of intellectual property generally appeal to utilitarianism (that 'nothing will be created' if creators are not granted a monopoly over their creation), Michele Boldrin and David Levine have examined, in their book Against Intellectual Monopoly,[14] the empirical evidence for this claim. They find that, rather than stimulating creativity and innovation, intellectual property laws - especially patent laws - usually inhibit creativity and innovation.

[edit] Copyright by contractMany opponents of IP rights support only contractual arrangements to protect ideas and innovations — private contracts between property owners. But private contract cannot be used to recreate the same type of protection afforded by modern IP rights.

A contract binds only parties to the contract. Patent and copyright, by contrast, bind all third parties, regardless of their consent to a contract. Thus, if the book purchaser B relates to third parties T the plot of a purchased novel, these third parties T are not bound, in general, by the original contractual obligation between A and B.

Thus, the use of contract only goes so far. A book publisher may be able to contractually obligate his purchasers to not copy his book, but he cannot prevent third parties from publishing and selling it, unless some contract prohibits this action.[15]

 

[RKMBrown]

In a ture capitalist society, would patent rights exist? Can someone say they are a capitalist and also say they beleive in patent rights?

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

If you are a true capitalist, and believe that the economy should be free from government interference, can you advoacte for patent laws without it being a contradiction?

Patent laws come from the government. Therefore, you would be introducing laws that interfere with the economy, thus the system would no longer truly be capitalist.

What does "pure" capitalist mean? Please rewrite without using adjectives.

>> Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

That is a straw-man argument. Not a statement of fact.

In fact I would argue, as the formers of our nation did, that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property, such as intellectual property (through patents), and works (through copyrights), and even brands (through trademarks). The reason for these protections is to have incentives for people to create said property. Yes, the time frame should also be limited and the monopolies removed so that competition may then ride on the shoulders of the prior works.

 

[RKMBrown]

IP is always in direct opposition to real material property rights.

What does "real" material property rights mean? Do you mean a design is not real?

 

[originalthought]

In a ture capitalist society, would patent rights exist? Can someone say they are a capitalist and also say they beleive in patent rights?

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

If you are a true capitalist, and believe that the economy should be free from government interference, can you advoacte for patent laws without it being a contradiction?

Patent laws come from the government. Therefore, you would be introducing laws that interfere with the economy, thus the system would no longer truly be capitalist.

What does "pure" capitalist mean? Please rewrite without using adjectives.

>> Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

That is a straw-man argument. Not a statement of fact.

In fact I would argue, as the formers of our nation did, that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property, such as intellectual property (through patents), and works (through copyrights), and even brands (through trademarks). The reason for these protections is to have incentives for people to create said property. Yes, the time frame should also be limited and the monopolies removed so that competition may then ride on the shoulders of the prior works.

I didn't say "pure capitalist" so I do not know what you want me to rewrite.. In fact, others were able to answer the question, so the fact that you cannot, must mean that your brain does not function at a high enough level to read and comprehend. I am tired of you acting like an arrogant ass whole, you are no different than the intellectual statist. You beleive that the state will protect you. This is a lie that you have bought into. But it is neither here nor there.

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference, ran by private individuals and controlled by private individuals. If you don't like the definition, to bad. That's what it is.

The kind of system that you are advocating is not capitalism, and that's one of the great problems of this age. People like you trash the definition of capitalism

 

[RKMBrown]

In a ture capitalist society, would patent rights exist? Can someone say they are a capitalist and also say they beleive in patent rights?

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

If you are a true capitalist, and believe that the economy should be free from government interference, can you advoacte for patent laws without it being a contradiction?

Patent laws come from the government. Therefore, you would be introducing laws that interfere with the economy, thus the system would no longer truly be capitalist.

What does "pure" capitalist mean? Please rewrite without using adjectives.

>> Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

That is a straw-man argument. Not a statement of fact.

In fact I would argue, as the formers of our nation did, that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property, such as intellectual property (through patents), and works (through copyrights), and even brands (through trademarks). The reason for these protections is to have incentives for people to create said property. Yes, the time frame should also be limited and the monopolies removed so that competition may then ride on the shoulders of the prior works.

I didn't say "pure capitalist" so I do not know what you want me to rewrite.. In fact, others were able to answer the question, so the fact that you cannot, must mean that your brain does not function at a high enough level to read and comprehend. I am tired of you acting like an arrogant ass whole, you are no different than the intellectual statist. You beleive that the state will protect you. This is a lie that you have bought into. But it is neither here nor there.

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference, ran by private individuals and controlled by private individuals. If you don't like the definition, to bad. That's what it is.

The kind of system that you are advocating is not capitalism, and that's one of the great problems of this age. People like you trash the definition of capitalism

Ok then tell me what "ture capitalist" means you arrogant prick.

Where did I say the state "will" protect me you ass hole? I said they are tasked with the job of protecting property rights. Are you stupid as well as ignorant?

Where did you get your definition of Capitalism? Capitalism for Idiots?

 

[Pennywise]

What does "pure" capitalist mean? Please rewrite without using adjectives.

>> Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

That is a straw-man argument. Not a statement of fact.

In fact I would argue, as the formers of our nation did, that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property, such as intellectual property (through patents), and works (through copyrights), and even brands (through trademarks). The reason for these protections is to have incentives for people to create said property. Yes, the time frame should also be limited and the monopolies removed so that competition may then ride on the shoulders of the prior works.

I didn't say "pure capitalist" so I do not know what you want me to rewrite.. In fact, others were able to answer the question, so the fact that you cannot, must mean that your brain does not function at a high enough level to read and comprehend. I am tired of you acting like an arrogant ass whole, you are no different than the intellectual statist. You beleive that the state will protect you. This is a lie that you have bought into. But it is neither here nor there.

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference, ran by private individuals and controlled by private individuals. If you don't like the definition, to bad. That's what it is.

The kind of system that you are advocating is not capitalism, and that's one of the great problems of this age. People like you trash the definition of capitalism

Ok then tell me what "ture capitalist" means you arrogant prick.

Where did I say the state "will" protect me you ass hole? I said they are tasked with the job of protecting property rights. Are you stupid as well as ignorant?

Where did you get your definition of Capitalism? Capitalism for Idiots?

I think we are conversing with a fledgling Libertarian. It takes some years of living to discover that limited government does not mean no government. Youthful enthusiasm combined with limited experience, I suspect.

 

[originalthought]

What does "pure" capitalist mean? Please rewrite without using adjectives.

>> Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference.

That is a straw-man argument. Not a statement of fact.

In fact I would argue, as the formers of our nation did, that it is one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property, such as intellectual property (through patents), and works (through copyrights), and even brands (through trademarks). The reason for these protections is to have incentives for people to create said property. Yes, the time frame should also be limited and the monopolies removed so that competition may then ride on the shoulders of the prior works.

I didn't say "pure capitalist" so I do not know what you want me to rewrite.. In fact, others were able to answer the question, so the fact that you cannot, must mean that your brain does not function at a high enough level to read and comprehend. I am tired of you acting like an arrogant ass whole, you are no different than the intellectual statist. You beleive that the state will protect you. This is a lie that you have bought into. But it is neither here nor there.

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference, ran by private individuals and controlled by private individuals. If you don't like the definition, to bad. That's what it is.

The kind of system that you are advocating is not capitalism, and that's one of the great problems of this age. People like you trash the definition of capitalism

Ok then tell me what "ture capitalist" means you arrogant prick.

Where did I say the state "will" protect me you ass hole? I said they are tasked with the job or protecting property rights. Are you stupid as well as ignorant?

AHHHHH hahhah LMAO. Look who is upset now. Funny. You realize though, you were the dickhead first in the other thread when you jsut called me an idiot, rather than rationally discussing this issue. You arrogantly assumed that you were correct, and that you cannot be incorrect.

You are your own personal property. you said, "one of the primary purposes of our government to protect property..." you believe this lie. The government is set up that way, on a piece of paper, but in reality it does not do this.

In capitalism, you are your own property. So if government's role is to protect property, then you must beleive that will protect you, since you are your porperty.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

IP is always in direct opposition to real material property rights.

What does "real" material property rights mean? Do you mean a design is not real?

No, a design is real enough. But if You come to a production design at the same time that someone else does, and you file patent first, should the other guy get screwed out of his material property? Or even if he unknowingly comes to it after you did?

The answer is obvious and I posted the information regarding the arguments against IP laws.

 

[RKMBrown]

I didn't say "pure capitalist" so I do not know what you want me to rewrite.. In fact, others were able to answer the question, so the fact that you cannot, must mean that your brain does not function at a high enough level to read and comprehend. I am tired of you acting like an arrogant ass whole, you are no different than the intellectual statist. You beleive that the state will protect you. This is a lie that you have bought into. But it is neither here nor there.

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the belief that the economy should be free from government interference, ran by private individuals and controlled by private individuals. If you don't like the definition, to bad. That's what it is.

The kind of system that you are advocating is not capitalism, and that's one of the great problems of this age. People like you trash the definition of capitalism

Ok then tell me what "ture capitalist" means you arrogant prick.

Where did I say the state "will" protect me you ass hole? I said they are tasked with the job of protecting property rights. Are you stupid as well as ignorant?

Where did you get your definition of Capitalism? Capitalism for Idiots?

I think we are conversing with a fledgling Libertarian. It takes some years of living to discover that limited government does not mean no government. Youthful enthusiasm combined with limited experience, I suspect.

Ah, then if so I apologize to the fledgling Libertarian.

Heads up to him that you have to have "some" law to control and manage property/the economy. The reason being that the nature of men (some men) is to use power over others for personal benefit (aka oppression, see the mob, see gang rule, see kings, see czars, etc.). In the absence of control someone will always fill the gap. The brilliance of the formers was to set up opposing forces to keep power in check. The balance of which has been eroding ever since.