Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before.

Judge Alex Kozinski, in White v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, 1513 (9th Cir. 1993) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)

As I noted here:

I published Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) last September, in hardcover, soft cover, and Kindle formats. A free pdf was released at the time of publication as well and the book was published under at CC0 (no rights reserved) license. Read more >>

As I explain at the AIP landing page,

For a compilation of my more recent writing on IP, see You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023). And see also Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023). I stand by AIP but You Can’t Own Ideas contains a streamlined and updated version of the arguments in AIP, “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society” (ch. 6) followed by Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (ch. 7) (these are also included in Part IV of Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)). Together, these two chapters my main arguments against IP. AIP and other chapters in You Can’t Own Ideas thus contain the bulk of my anti-IP ideas and will have to suffice until I tackle writing Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (probably in 2026 or so).

The purpose of property rights is to reduce conflict in the use of scarce means by assigning owners based on objective and just criteria, namely original appropriation (ownership, property) and contractual title transfer (contract), plus ancillary rules for tort (rectification).¹ [continue reading…]

1. Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) (LFFS), ch. 2, text at n.11 et pass., ch. 11, text at n.15 et pass.; also chs. 4, 5, 14, et pass.; Kinsella, “Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform,” StephanKinsella.com (May 30, 2022); idem, “KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019, Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (Feb. 9, 2019). [↩]

In a recent Federalist Society lecture series on Roman Law, Richard Epstein in one lecture (see below) discusses how the famous Roman jurist Gaius treats the concept of theft.

[continue reading…]

As I mention in Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property, Mark Skousen is bad on the topic of intellectual property. I know this from private correspondence with him in the wake of my Soho Forum debate (KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished).

Now he doubles down. In a recent article for the Cobden Centre, “This Little-Known Section of the Constitution Made America the World’s #1 SuperPower,” where he rightly points out the advantages of free trade in the American “common market” stemming from language in the US Constitution, he unfortunately adds this unnecessary comment to the end: [continue reading…]

Yet more IP absurdity. But this is where the “logic” of IP leads. H/t Bob Murphy.

Does Pantone have a monopoly on colors? Is that bad?

A while back Michael Rectwald sent me this 2008 paper of his, “The Trope of “the Poor Inventor” in the British Patent Debate (and Beyond).” If I am not mistaken, this was written even before he was a libertarian. Impressive.

Abstract:

As recent scholarship on the history of invention has shown, the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century inventor was proposed as a plausible new hero of the industrial revolution. But the inventor has also been characterized as a creature of accident—of risk, poverty, madness, and premature death. By the 1820s, inventors were not only heroes of industry; they became its victims as well—“poor inventors” who suffered under poverty and oppression to bring forth the works of the mind. The case of the poor inventor was introduced and championed by advocates of inventive workers from the 1820s until the 1840s; the figure came to stand emblematically for working-class interests at large. By 1850, however, the ideological and rhetorical construct of the poor inventor was appropriated by a liberal, mostly middle-class lobby to affect the first reform of patent law in modern British history.

As Michael commented to me, “It’s about the figure of the “poor inventor” and how it was mobilized to effect patent law “reform.” Note that my piece isn’t about IP per se. It focuses on the rhetoric used to maintain it as against the abolitionists of the period in Britain.”

For more on this issue, see my post “Intellectual Properganda.”

Too bad he was not the Libertarian Party’s nominee this year. He would have been the first Presidential candidate in history, to my knowledge, including previous LP candidates, to oppose IP. The current nominee, Chase Oliver, seems to have some good instinctual skepticism of IP but unfortunately no coherent or principled stand against it (see my tweet re same).