Related

• (All by Kinsella), “Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance,” Brownstone Institute (April 1, 2024)
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• Tabarrok and Murphy: Why Are US Drug Prices So High?
• Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
• “Intellectual Property Advocates Hate Competition”
• Are Patents and Copyrights “Monopolies”?
• IP Rights as Monopolistic Grants to Overcome the Public Goods Problem
• “Decouple Trade and IP Protection,” Brownstone Institute (Dec. 4, 2024)
• The China Stealing IP Myth
• “Free-trade” pacts export U.S. copyright controls
• Patents and Pharmaceuticals
• “FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal” (May 5, 2023)
  • “Are Patents Needed to Make Up for FDA Kneecapping?” (July 2, 2011)
• KOL469 | Haman Nature Hn 149: Tabarrok on Patents, Price Controls, and Drug Reimportation
• Optimal Patent and Copyright Term Length
• Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin
• Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property
• Pharmaceutical Shills and Think Tank Corruption: Sally Pipes’s The World’s Medicine Chest: How America Achieved Pharmaceutical Supremacy―and How to Keep It
• Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property: “IP can’t be socialistic, since the Soviet Union didn’t recognize IP law.”

See Lawrence Wilson and Sylvia Xu, “The Loophole Drug Makers Use to Keep Prices High: How pharmaceutical companies use the patent system to delay generic drugs from coming to market,” Epoch Times – In Depth – Premium Reports (May 24, 2026). Decent article. Of course, it hypocritically whines about patent law “abuse” while using the equally evil¹ copyright law and paywalls to block people from reading this information, so I post only a snippet and a Grok summary below.²

The article is wrong to refer to this as a “loophole.” This is just sleazy clickbait since the word does not even appear in the article. Using patent law as it is written is not a loophole nor is it “abuse.” The thing, the thing, the thing itself is the abuse! (h/t Burke) No; this is just the normal response of market actors to a patent system. If you give free food to people (“you on da the welfare,” as Eddie Murphy would say), they will take it, like hogs to a trough. If you give market actors the ability to use state force to hobble competitors by acquiring patents, they’ll do it. Welfare recipient are not the problem; patent applicants are not the the problem. The problem is the state stealing from taxpayers and granting patents! —and the confused citizens and intellectuals who support this robbery (Yes, Dorothy, patents are theft; (( Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes. )) I would say, “h/t Proudhon” but but while he said property is theft³ it is not clear that he opposed IP, any more than other stupid socialists oppose IP.)⁴ So the subtitle is correct: “How pharmaceutical companies use the patent system to delay generic drugs from coming to market.” Why wouldn’t they? What do you expect? It’s not a loophole. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! [continue reading…]

1. “Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse?” [↩]
2. We are all copyright criminals: John Tehranian’s “Infringement Nation”  [↩]
3. Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property. [↩]
4. Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property: “IP can’t be socialistic, since the Soviet Union didn’t recognize IP law.” [↩]

[From my Webnote series]

Related

• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright”
• Intellectual Property’s Great Fallacy;
• Mark Lemley: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth
• IP Law and “Market Failure”
• Richard Epstein’s Takings Political Theory versus Epstein’s Intellectual Property Views
• Richard Epstein’s Takings Theory of the State
• Email to Richard Epstein: Tension Between Takings Framework and IP Views
• “Intellectual Property Advocates Hate Competition”
• The Universal Principles of Liberty; The Fundamental Principles of Justice
• On Property Rights in Superabundant Bananas and Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession
• Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action
• The Problem with Intellectual Property

From various posts at C4SIF.org and StephanKinsella.com:

The Problem with Intellectual Property:****

I tire of people repeating over and over again that we need IP because without it there would be no innovation, etc. I have pointed out to them over and over that not only is this false,¹ but that it misconceives the purpose of law itself. It imagines that there are market failures and imperfections,² such as “holdout problems” and “free riders,”³ and “too much competition,⁴ and that the state is therefore justified in intervening–in engaging in what are in effect takings—in attempt to grow the size of the pie. Of course this never works because (a) there are no market failures, (b) even if there are, they are dwarfed by political failure, i.e. the solution is worse than the problem. But it also assumes that if the state could intervene and make things “better” in some vague sense, that this is justified. But this misconceives the purpose of law: it is is to do justice—by recognizing, identifying, defining, respecting, and protecting property rights.⁵ IP law violates property rights;⁶ it is the opposite of justice. It is a perversion of law and justice. [continue reading…]

1. The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright; “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright”;  Intellectual Property’s Great Fallacy; Mark Lemley: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth. [↩]
2. IP Law and “Market Failure”. [↩]
3. Richard Epstein’s Takings Political Theory versus Epstein’s Intellectual Property Views; Richard Epstein’s Takings Theory of the State; Email to Richard Epstein: Tension Between Takings Framework and IP Views.  [↩]
4. “Intellectual Property Advocates Hate Competition”. [↩]
5. As Justinian himself said, “Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due.… The maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.” Thomas, ed. (1975, Book 1, Title 1). See also The Universal Principles of Liberty; The Fundamental Principles of Justice; The Fundamental Principles of Justice. [↩]
6.  Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes. [↩]

Related

Kinsella, “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024)

• • The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files
  • “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024)
  • KOL485 | The Brownstone Show, with Jeffrey Tucker: Defamation and Intellectual Property
  • The Velvet Elvis and Other Trademark Absurdities
  • Taylor Swift Files Trademark to Protect Her Voice and Likeness Against AI Misuse
  • Trademark Ain’t So Hot Either…
  • Trademark and Fraud; Discussion with George Reisman
  • Copyright is Unconstitutional (trademark too)
    • The Velvet Elvis and Other Trademark Absurdities
    • KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property, Loyola University—New Orleans
  • Classificationism, Legislation, Copyright
  • Federal Judges Aren’t Real Judges
  • Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes
  • Re the “tension” between free speech and trademark, like other tensions such as the tension between patent and competition, between patent and copyright law and monopolies and antitrust law:
    • Antitrust vs. Trademark Law
    • Price Controls, Antitrust, and Patents (July 2011)
    • Antitrust vs. Trademark Law (June 2011)
    • The Schizo Feds: Patent Monopolies and the FTC (Aug. 2006)
    • The Schizophrenic State (Jan. 2006)
    • IP vs. Antitrust (Sept. 2005)
    • The Microsoft-Apple Gesture Oligopoly
    • Controls breed controls, Monopolies breed monopolies
    • When Antitrust and Patents Collide (Rambus v. FTC)

Trademarks and Free Speech: Conflicts and Resolutions: CIPIL Evening Seminar, Cambridge lecture by Lisa P. Ramsey, author of Trademarks and Free Speech: Conflicts and Resolutions (Cambridge, 2026). [continue reading…]

[From my Webnote series]

Related

• Classificationism, Legislation, Copyright
• Federal Judges Aren’t Real Judges
• Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes
• The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights; Individuals are Responsible for Actions, not “for Their Property”; Property rights are not obligations or responsibilities
• On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources
• The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists
• Hardy Bouillon, A Note on Intellectual Property and Externalities
• Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society [LFFS] (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), n30.
• Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, in LFFS
• Sarah Isgur and David French, “SCOTUS Clears Way for Alabama to Use Congressional Map,” Advisory Opinions (May 14, 2026), at 38:21
• Vericool World LLC v. Igloo Products Corp., No. 24-192 (9th Cir. May 6, 2026) (GovInfo; pdf)
• John Rearick, “Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 8: … Split Ninth Circuit Panel Nixes False Representation Claims,” IPWatchdog.com (May 8, 2026)
• Rebecca Tushnet, “Dastar bars false advertising claim against “first of its kind” ads,” Rebecca Tushnet’s Blog (Dec. 15, 2023)
• Jeff Greenbaum, “Who Made the “First” Biodegradable Cooler?,” Advertising Law Blog, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC (May 11, 2026)

Interesting recent case discussed by Sarah Isgur and David French in Advisory Opinions:¹ Vericool World LLC v. Igloo Products Corp. (9th Cir. May 6, 2026).² [continue reading…]

1. David French, “SCOTUS Clears Way for Alabama to Use Congressional Map,” Advisory Opinions (May 14, 2026), at 38:21. [↩]
2. Vericool World LLC v. Igloo Products Corp., No. 24-192 (9th Cir. May 6, 2026) (GovInfo; pdf), a Ninth Circuit opinion affirming summary judgment and holding that “first to market” claims are not actionable under the Lanham Act [trademark law] as they concern the origin of an idea rather than observable product characteristics. For commentary, see John Rearick, “Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 8: … Split Ninth Circuit Panel Nixes False Representation Claims,” IPWatchdog.com (May 8, 2026) (solid summary of the split decision, majority’s tangible-vs.-intangible line, Bumatay dissent on plain meaning, and patent-law overlap concerns); Rebecca Tushnet, “Dastar bars false advertising claim against “first of its kind” ads,” Rebecca Tushnet’s Blog (Dec. 15, 2023) (analysis of the district court ruling framing it as a Dastar-based bar on false-advertising claims for “first of its kind” ads); Jeff Greenbaum, “Who Made the “First” Biodegradable Cooler?,” Advertising Law Blog, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC (May 11, 2026) (practical analysis of the Ninth Circuit holding, Lanham Act limits, and implications for advertisers making priority/originality claims). [↩]

Related

• Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright
• Texas A&M (formerly Tulane) law professor Glynn Lunney
• Glynn S. Lunney Jr, “Trademark Monopolies,” Emory L. J. 48 (1999): 367–487
• Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., “A Natural Right to Copy,” Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming;  Texas A&M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-42 25 (Posted: 20 Aug 2019)
• Glynn Lunney, Copyright’s Excess, TEDxTAMU
• Copyright: The New Mercantilism

Grok summary of Lunney on IP

Summary of the two attached papers by Glynn S. Lunney Jr.

1. “Trademark Monopolies” (Emory Law Journal, 1999)

This is a major scholarly critique of the expansion of U.S. trademark law in the second half of the 20th century. Lunney traces trademark doctrine from its early 18th–mid-20th century roots, where courts and commentators (including Edward Chamberlin’s theory of monopolistic competition) treated trademarks as a form of monopoly that required careful limits to avoid harming competition. Early trademark protection was justified primarily on deception-based grounds: preventing consumer confusion about the source of goods so that buyers could match their preferences to products accurately. This served an efficiency function (better information, quality incentives) while still allowing “workable” or “fair” competition.

Lunney argues that since the mid-1950s (especially after the Lanham Act), trademark law has undergone a profound shift toward property-based protection. Courts and commentators increasingly treat the trademark itself as a valuable asset/product worth protecting independent of any source-identifying function. This has produced:

• Expansion of protectable subject matter (e.g., more trade dress, slogans, colors, product shapes).
• Broader scope of rights (dilution, anti-confusion rules reaching “possible” rather than “probable” confusion, protection against non-competing uses).

The result, Lunney contends, is the creation of “trademark monopolies” in the pejorative sense: market power and deadweight loss without the offsetting consumer-information benefits of traditional deception-based trademarks. He rejects the common analogy to patent/copyright (which at least purport to incentivize new creation), noting that trademark doctrine does not tie protection to any proven need for extra incentives and risks locking up product differentiation in ways that harm competition. The paper calls for restoring the competitive balance by limiting protection to cases of material deception.

2. “A Natural Right to Copy” (Texas A&M Law Scholarship / SSRN, 2019)

This essay is a direct philosophical and normative attack on natural-rights justifications for copyright (and by extension IP more broadly). Lunney begins with the observation that copying/imitation is the foundation of civilization: language, culture, technology, and knowledge transmission all depend on it. Without the ability to copy, humans could not learn, share discoveries, or build cumulatively (“standing on the shoulders of giants”). Creativity is valuable but secondary; copying is the sine qua non of progress.

He critiques Wendy Gordon’s influential 1993 article that used John Locke’s labor-desert theory to argue for a natural right to exclude others from copying original expressive works. Lunney argues Gordon conceded too much by equating copying with “theft.” Copying is not theft (it does not deprive the owner of the original); it is a natural human faculty and the default rule in any sensible baseline. Locke’s framework, properly read, supports a natural right to copy, not a natural right to monopolize copies. Copyright is purely positive (statutory) law—an artificial, narrow exception to the general freedom to copy—and should be construed narrowly. Lunney emphasizes that self-interest, reputation, and market forces already provide substantial incentives for creation even without broad copyright; expansive protection mainly serves concentrated industry interests at the expense of consumers and cumulative culture.

How anti-IP is Lunney compared to Stephan Kinsella?

Kinsella is one of the most radical and consistent abolitionists of all IP (patents, copyrights, and trademarks). He argues IP is unjust government-granted monopoly privilege that violates natural rights in tangible property and free speech, impedes innovation, and should be abolished entirely in favor of private-ordering alternatives (contracts, trade secrets, etc.). His site (C4SIF) celebrates scholars who are “thumbs down” on IP and explicitly frames copyright as “the new mercantilism.”

Lunney is strongly anti-IP in practice and is explicitly cited approvingly by Kinsella in both of the consulted posts:

• Kinsella’s “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright” lists Lunney alongside abolitionists and radical skeptics (Kinsella, Tom Bell, etc.).
• Kinsella’s “Copyright: The New Mercantilism” post highlights Lunney’s critique that modern copyright expansions rest on mercantilist/job-protection rationales rather than genuine incentive arguments, and that even a very limited copyright (roughly the scope of the 1790 Copyright Act—14 years against commercial mechanical duplication) “may” be justified, but broader protection is unjustified and harmful.

Key differences in degree of opposition:

• Lunney is a reformist skeptic. He accepts that some very minimal, narrowly tailored IP (especially traditional deception-based trademark and perhaps a short, limited copyright) could be defensible on efficiency/incentive grounds in theory. His work focuses on showing that current expansive doctrines have overshot that point and created unjustified monopolies. He works within the existing legal framework to constrain and roll back overreach.
• Kinsella is a principled abolitionist. He rejects the entire IP category as illegitimate on both deontological (natural rights) and consequentialist grounds and calls for its outright elimination, not mere narrowing.

In short, Lunney is one of the more prominent academic critics of expansive IP and is squarely in the “anti-IP” camp as Kinsella defines it—he supplies powerful scholarly ammunition against modern copyright and trademark expansion. But he stops short of Kinsella’s full abolitionist position, leaving open the possibility of a stripped-down, incentive-justified core. Kinsella is farther out on the spectrum: total elimination of state IP monopolies. Lunney is “anti-IP” enough to be praised by Kinsella, but more moderate/reform-oriented in his ultimate prescriptions.

***

A Natural Right to Copy

Glynn S. Lunney Jr, “Trademark Monopolies,” Emory L. J. 48 (1999): 367–487

Abstract:

Since 1742, when Lord Hardwicke seemingly equated trademark protection with monopoly in one of the first trademark cases, until the mid-1950s, concerns that trademarks represented a form of illegitimate monopoly effectively constrained the growth of trademark protection. In the twentieth century, Edward Chamberlin became the leading proponent of the trademark as monopoly view with the publication of his work, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, in 1933. In his work, Chamberlin argued that a trademark enabled its owner to differentiate her products and then to exclude others from using the differentiating feature. By doing so, trademark protection can effectively cede control over distinct product markets to individual producers and thereby generate for trademark owners the downward sloping demand curve of a monopolist, with its associated monopoly rents and deadweight losses. Although Chamberlin himself recognized the need for product differentiation and rejected the supposed ideal of the perfect competition model, his work became a common rallying point for the trademark as monopoly argument. During the legislative debates leading to the Trademark Act of 1946, his work served as a basis for the Justice Department’s opposition to broad trademark protection.

***

Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., “A Natural Right to Copy,” Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming;  Texas A&M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-42 25 (Posted: 20 Aug 2019)

Abstract:

In this symposium, we gather to celebrate the work of Wendy Gordon. In this essay, I revisit her article, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property. In the article, Professor Gordon first used the “no-harm” principle of John Locke to justify copyright as natural right and then used his “enough-and-as-good” proviso to limit that right. Her second step turned natural rights approaches to copyright on its head. Through it, she showed that even if we accept copyright as natural right, that acceptance does not necessarily lead to a copyright of undue breadth or perpetual duration. Rather, even a natural rights framework leads to a copyright regime shorter and narrower than we presently have.

While I agree that copyright should be shorter and narrower, I worry that Professor Gordon conceded too much in her first step. Neither Locke’s reasoning nor Professor Gordon’s reading of it can justify a right to prohibit copying as a matter of natural law. It is not the right to prohibit copying to which we have a natural entitlement. It is the right to copy.

Andrea Togni, “The Multiple-Homesteading Theory and the Metaphysics of Ideas and Information,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 30, no. 1 (2026): 64–86.

Abstract:

This article explores the intersections between privacy, property rights, ideas, and information. The multiple-homesteading theory (MHT) posits that property rights have universal applicability, encompassing the physical, digital, and mental domains. Property in ideas and information (PII) exists only as long as privacy is fully maintained. Once shared, ideas and information trigger automatic homesteading processes in any individual who comes into contact with them; these individuals then form new and original ideas, which remain their exclusive property as long as privacy is preserved. Any libertarian addressing PII must investigate the ontological nature of ideas and information, which cannot be defined in purely physicalistic terms. This article carries out this preparatory work through examinations of heterogeneous philosophical and scientific theories, literature, and classical music. In addition, a meme theory of ideas is outlined. Ultimately, recognizing the existence of PII does not legitimize positivistic intellectual property (IP) legislation, which is incompatible with libertarian principles. Instead, the MHT demonstrates that privacy bridges coherent libertarian theory and effective libertarian action, especially in a world dominated by the pervasive intersection of the physical and digital domains.

Related:

• IP is Not “Not Property”
• It is impossible to own ideas
• Another way to explain the problem with IP: Resources v. Knowledge; Ownership v. Possession
• Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action
• Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
• “The Problem with Intellectual Property”
• More defenses of IP by the Federalist Society
• Anti-IP Material Needed in the IP Section of the Federalist Society’s “Conservative & Libertarian Legal Scholarship: Annotated Bibliography”
• Federalist Society Panel: Undermining or Preserving Property Rights? The New Administrative Patents
• Independent Institute on the “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection
• Austrian Economics Center and Hayek Institute Support IP Socialism and 2026 World IP Day Coalition
• Attempts to Get on Mainstream IP Podcast and AIPLA Quarterly Journal Predictably Fail
• KOL235 | Intellectual Property: A First Principles Debate (Federalist Society POLICYbrief)
• Other Federalist Society mentions

I have no doubt in my mind they will royally screw this up.

When Should We Recognize Something as a Property Right?

May 8, 2026
Friday, 12:00 p.m. EDT
Webinar

Sponsors: Intellectual Property Practice Group [continue reading…]

In comments I suggested:

• IP is Not “Not Property”
• Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
• “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society”

IP: The Property That Isn’t

[continue reading…]

Gamrot, A Critique of Moore’s Intellectual Property Theory

Related:

• Speaking at APEE IP Panel in Guatemala: as well as a pro-IP paper by Adam Moore, “Five Arguments for Intellectual Property,” who has written fairly in assessing both anti- and pro-IP arguments in the past”
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Intellectual Property Theories
• Hettinger v. Paine: Justifying Intellectual Property Rights
  • Moore is author of Intellectual Property and Information Control: Philosophic Foundations and Contemporary Issues (Routledge, 2001; pdf), Intellectual Property: Moral, Legal, and International Dilemmas, ed. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997; pdf; Introduction), and the forthcoming Intellectual Property: Moral and Legal Foundations
• Moore, ed., Adam D. (1997). Intellectual Property: Moral Legal and International Dilemmas. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. https://perma.cc/L78R-EMFS
• Moore, Adam D. and Kenneth Einar Himma (2011). “Intellectual Property,” in Edward N. Zalta, ed., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1980917; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/
• Adam D. Moore, Intellectual Property and Information Control: Philosophic Foundations and Contemporary Issues (New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers, 2001 [New York and London: Transaction Publishing, 2004])

Wojciech Gamrot, “A Critique of Moore’s Intellectual Property Theory,” The Journal of Value Inquiry (2025).

From the Introduction:

Several authors try to provide a moral justification for intellectual property (IP) rights. A popular strand of these theories refers to the philosophy of John Locke, and portrays IP as a natural right. Among them, the writings of Adam D. Moore have gained substantial popularity. His theory is presented in several widely quoted works. It was criticized by numerous authors.^Footnote1 However its ontological underpinnings draw little attention. This paper aims to investigate their validity. The discussion focuses on a detailed exposition of the theory presented in Moore’s (2004) book.^Footnote2 Some insights are also drawn from his other works.^Footnote3 In the second section the theory is briefly sketched. In the third section preliminary remarks regarding the justification of natural rights are offered. In the next three sections ontological assumptions of Moore’s theory are identified and challenged. Two objections are stated. They independently lead to the formulation, in the seventh section, of a competing ontology that is superior to Moore’s metaphysics. In the following five sections its implications are explored. It is argued, against Moore, that humans cannot possess, use, or labor on types. In the remaining sections these findings are confronted with Moore’s IP justification. It is demonstrated that his theory does not justify rights to types, and that any such rights are meaningless.

[continue reading…]

I have done what I can to present my case against IP not only to Austrians and libertarians but to other lawyers. Anything to get the word out and to defeat or put a dent in the support for evil IP. I asked Walter Block one time why he published so many articles on blackmail theory, many redundant or duplicative. He just said something like, “As Murray Rothbard would say … SMASH ‘EM!”¹ I guess I feel the same about IP. So I’ve accepted debates and spoken before non-libertarian audiences and published in various related fora such as IP group newsletters, universities, or Federalist society or other fora, e.g.:

• “Is Intellectual Property Legitimate?“y, Pennsylvania Bar Association IP Law Newsletter (1998), later published in the Federalist Society’s Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter in 2000
• KOL308 | Stossel: It’s My Idea (2015)
• KOL235 | Intellectual Property: A First Principles Debate (Federalist Society POLICYbrief)
• KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property, Loyola University—New Orleans
• KOL079 | “Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)” (2011)
• KOL427 | Lewis & Clark College Debate on Intellectual Property Imperialism
• KOL253 | Berkeley Law Federalist Society: A Libertarian’s Case Against Intellectual Property
• KOL151 | Yale Speech: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liberties: A Libertarian Perspective
• KOL230 | Yale Political Union Debate: Resolved: IP Should Be Abolished!
• KOL071 | “Intellectual Property Law and Policy” at NYU School of Law Symposium (2011)
• KOL101 | The Future (the End?) of Intellectual Property (Open Science Summit, 2011) (Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California)

[continue reading…]

1. “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre,” text at n.6. [↩]

Rothbard: bad and confused on patent and IP by contract; silent on trademark; good on defamation.

• David Gordon on IP (Jan. 8, 2025)
• David S. D’Amato, “Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property: Rothbard, Tucker, Spooner, and Rand,” Libertarianism.org (May 28, 2014)
• Matt Zwolinski in The Myth of Libertarianism
• Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and “Rearranging” (Sept. 29, 2010)
• Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property (June 23, 2010)
• Murray N. Rothbard, Knowledge, True and False
• ———, Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Scholars Edition, pp. 745-54 & 1133-38
• ———, Rothbard’s comments here
• IP as Contract (April 20, 2025)
• Rothbard on the Main Fallacy of our Time: Marx’s Labor Theory of Value (Dec. 26, 2016)
• Kinsella, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights” (Jan. 22, 2010)
• Kinsella, “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ” (Jan. 22, 2010)
• Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value, StephanKinsella.com (June 12, 2011)
• Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
• Milton Friedman (and Rothbard) on the Distorting and Skewing Effect of Patents (Sept. 29, 2010)
• “Rand on IP, Owning “Values”, and ‘Rearrangement Rights’,” Mises Economics Blog (Nov. 16, 2009)

See the following, adapted from my tweet in response to Matt Zwolinski in The Myth of Libertarianism. [continue reading…]

Seemed to be leaning against IP, though not entirely clearly. See Hayek’s Views on Intellectual Property; also Tucker, “Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation“; Tucker, “Hayek on Patents and Copyrights“; Salerno, Hayek Contra Copyright Laws

See also Don’t tell me to read Hayek

Related

• Miguel Hernández, “Anatomy of a libertarian fraud” (April 16, 2026) (Permalink (April 19, 2026))
• Hernández. tweet
  • Grau tweet 1; tweet 2
    • Grau’s Grok plagiarism analysis
• Other Milei criticism: HansHoppe.com; PFS; StephanKinsella.com; Kinsella on Liberty Podcast episodes
• Re the practice of attribution and credit: see Stephan Kinsella, ^“Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in  Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Houston: Papinian Press and Property and Freedom Society, 2026), in the section “Excursus: The Role of Ideas in Human Action”
  • “Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off“
  • Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
  • Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”
  • IP Proponents Do Not Even Know The Difference Between Patent, Copyright, Trademark … 
• Fraud:
  • A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Part III.E
  • “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Part IV.C

Oscar Grau has been a relentless critic of Javier Milei,¹ as have other libertarians.² Now Miguel Hernández has posted the article “Anatomy of a libertarian fraud” (April 16, 2026), another criticism of Milei, and announced it in a post on X. In response, Grau, who has been critical of libertarians who have vocally supported Milei, wrote:

Miguel Hernández has essentially published a book that plagiarizes all the work I have done on Milei over the past two years. The title he has chosen is even ironic, since most of his book is actually my own work. That is, he is also a fraud.

Others chimed in claiming that Grau has no complaint since IP is illegitimate. One wrote: “There is no thing such as intellectual property in anarcho-capitalism. You should be happy that your ideas are spreading.”; another wrote “Oscar, do you defend intellectual property?”

This brings up an interesting illustration of the issue of IP and its relation to plagiarism. [continue reading…]

1. Grau gives this list of his Milei related publications in his Grok plagiarism analysis:
   1. A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei – Part I
   2. A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei – Part II
   3. A Hoppean Dissection of Javier Milei
   4. When Balancing the Budget Hurts the Economy
   5. Argentina’s Inflation Fight
   6. Javier Milei Versus the Antiwar Cause
   7. Milei’s Monetary Conundrum
   8. Milei’s Political Game
   9. Unmasking Javier Milei and His Speech at the UN
   10. Milei’s Political Caste
   11. Repudiating the Argentine Debt
   12. The Financial Mirage in Argentina
   13. Quantity and Quality of the Argentine Peso
   14. Central Banking and Monetary Affairs in Argentina
   15. Javier Milei Is a Neocon
   16. Prosperity Thanks to Zionist Rule in Argentina Is Propaganda
   17. Serving the Devil to Help Milei Plunder Argentina
   18. How Milei Saved Argentina’s Central Bank
   19. In Defense of Murray Rothbard’s Legacy
   20. The Zionist Road to Serfdom in Argentina

   [↩]

2. HansHoppe.com; PFS; StephanKinsella.com; Kinsella on Liberty Podcast episodes. [↩]