Austrian Economics Center and Hayek Institute Support IP Socialism and 2026 World IP Day Coalition

[Cross-posted at PFS Blog]

Someone forwarded to me the email below from one Martin Gundinger of the Austrian Economics Center to one Britt Schier of the Friedrich A. v. Hayek Institute urging support of World IP Day. Both organizations are headquartered in Vienna; Barbara Kolm is Founding Director of the former and President of the latter, and is heralded as being “renowned for promoting free market policies.” (Kolm is also co-founder of the Javier Milei Institut für Deregulierung in Europa (Javier Milei Institute for Deregulation in Europe), and also Vice-President of the Central Bank of Austria (Oesterreichische Nationalbank) from 2018 to 2023.)

Institutes that are supposed to promote free market policies should not be promoting IP socialism! I guess we should not be surprised—Hayek was wobbly on IP¹ and on libertarian and free market property rights principles in general.²

The letter is purportedly forwarded from the Austrian Economics Center to the Hayek Institute, but these groups are obviously closely connected (in fact, they share a Twitter profile!) and are going along with the ruse that they are independent and both in support of IP as cover for and excuse to help gin up support for the annual WIPO promotion of IP. To make it appear there is actually independent support from free market groups. To help foster the illusion, the lie, that IP is just another (and important!) form of property rights, a natural part of capitalism and free markets.³ In actuality, the letter was prepared by the dishonestly-named Property Rights Alliance, an IP lobbying shill outfit that never saw an IP law it didn’t like. Naturally, it favors socialist WIPO’s absurd and evil—and totally unlibertarian, anti-free market⁴ —World IP Day. See, e.g., its most recent International Property Rights Index 2025; Available Now! 2025 International Property Rights Index.

The purpose of many of these “freedom indexes” has been to shill for IP by including IP rights in the various empirical measures of economic freedom in various countries; see Economic Freedom of the World Rankings and Intellectual Property: The United States’ Bad Ranking is Even Worse Than Reported. For example, in the Property Rights Alliance‘s 2025 International Property Rights Index  (see, on the downloads page, the Executive Summary (PDF) and Full Report (PDF)):

The index assesses the strength of institutions and the effectiveness of governments in safeguarding both physical and intellectual property rights. The IPRI is organized into three core components.

This is this disgusting group’s normal modus operandi: they send out a draft email ahead of WIPO’s annual World Intellectual Property Day:

In 2000, WIPO’s member states designated April 26 – the day on which the WIPO Convention came into force in 1970 – as World Intellectual Property Day with the aim of increasing the general understanding of intellectual property (IP).

World IP Day offers a unique opportunity to join with others around the world to consider how a balanced IP system helps the global arts scene to flourish and enables the technological innovation that drives human progress. The campaign highlights the role IP rights, such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs and copyright, play in encouraging and rewarding innovation and creativity while ensuring that researchers, inventors, businesses, designers, artists, and society benefit from it.

See, for example, the 2025 letter mentioned on their page for World Intellectual Property Day 2025. The current letter being circulated to drum up support for World IP Day and IP socialism is below. Shame on these allegedly free market institutes for supporting IP socialism—as well as others like the Independent Institute and others in the links below⁵ — even Hayek, as illiberal and confused and bad as he was, even he was at least somewhat hesitant about IP and would not have endorsed this evil World IP Day. He was hesitant about both patent and copyright, the two most destructive forms of IP.⁶ For example, as he wrote:

The growth of knowledge is of such special importance because, while the material resources will always remain scarce and will have to be reserved for limited purposes, the users of new knowledge (where we do not make them artificially scarce by patents of monopoly) are unrestricted. Knowledge, once achieved, becomes gratuitously available for the benefit of all. It is through this free gift of the knowledge acquired by the experiments of some members of society that general progress is made possible, that the achievements of those who have gone before facilitate the advance of those who follow.⁷

Regarding patents, he writes in Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago, 1948), pp. 113–114:

The problem of the prevention of monopoly and the preservation of competition is raised much more acutely in certain other fields to which the concept of property has been extended only in recent times. I am thinking here of the extension of the concept of property to such rights and privileges as patents for inventions, copyright, trade-marks, and the like. It seems to me beyond doubt that in these fields a slavish application of the concept of property as it has been developed for material things has done a great deal to foster the growth of monopoly and that here drastic reforms may be required if competition is to be made to work. In the field of industrial patents in particular we shall have seriously to examine whether the award of a monopoly privilege is really the most appropriate and effective form of reward for the kind of risk-bearing which investment in scientific research involves.

Patents, in particular, are specially interesting from our point of view because they provide so clear an illustration of how it is necessary in all such instances not to apply a ready-made formula but to go back to the rationale of the market system and to decide for each class what the precise rights are to be which the government ought to protect. This is a task at least as much for economists as for lawyers. Perhaps it is not a waste of your time if I illustrate which have in mind by quoting a rather well-known decision in which an American judge argued that “as to the suggestion that competitors were excluded from the use of the patent we answer that such exclusion may be said to have been the very essence of the right conferred by the patent” and adds “as it is the privilege of any owner of property to use it or not to use it without any question of motive.” (Continental Bag Co. v. Eastetn Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1909). It is this last statement which seems to me to be significant for the way in which a mechanical extension of the property concept by lawyers has done so much to create undesirable and harmful privilege.⁸

As for copyright, as Salerno notes:

In his brilliant article on “The Intellectuals and Socialism,” Friedrich Hayek suggests a strong causal connection between copyright laws and socialism. In discussing the development of the intellectual class, whom he characterizes as “secondhanders in ideas” and inherently inclined to promote socialism, Hayek writes:

One of the most important points that would have to be examined in such a discussion would be how far the growth of this [intellectual] class has been artificially stimulated by the law of copyright.

However, in a footnote he goes on to express doubt that an open debate on this issue could take place in a society in which the intellectual class itself controls the media:

It would be interesting to discover how far a seriously critical view of the benefits to society of the law of copyright, or the expression of doubts about the public interest in the existence of a class which makes its living from the writing of books, would have a chance of being publicly stated in a society in which the channels of expression are so largely controlled by people who have a vested interest on the existing situation.⁹

Incidentally, Mises, like Hayek, was also confused and weak on IP, but certainly was also not strongly pro-IP; Rothbard was much better but still somewhat confused; and Hoppe saw it clearly.¹⁰ With Hoppe’s work, building on and extending the work of Mises and Rothbard,¹¹ and my further elaborations on IP (read The Problem with Intellectual Property, people!), leading most principled libertarians and Austrians to now realize how harmful and unjustified IP rights¹² are,¹³ modern Austrians in 2026 have no excuse to support IP, much less WIPO’s World IP Day.

Note: Kolm is speaking at the Free Market [sic] Road Show in Houston tomorrow, an event I attended last year.¹⁴ Maybe I’ll skip it.

DRAFT LETTER FROM AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS CENTER TO THE HAYEK INSTITUTE

Dear FMRS Partners,

Please review the attached global coalition letter celebrating World IP Day and highlighting the importance of protecting intellectual property rights. To add your organization’s support to this initiative, please use the link provided in the attached document to sign the form by April 15th. Thank you!

Property Rights Alliance invites you to celebrate World Intellectual Property Rights Day on April 26th. This year’s theme is “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate.” PRA is collecting signatures for a global coalition letter addressed to WIPO Director General Daren Tang, highlighting the benefits of protecting intellectual property. Please find the updated 2026 World IP Day Letter below.  To sign, please click here and fill out the form by April 15th: Please help us to collect signatures among your trusted network of organizations Sign Here Official link of the WIPO’s World IP Day: https://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/ Thank you for your support, Lorenzo Montanari 2026 WIPO World Intellectual Property Day We are pleased to celebrate World Intellectual Property Day 2026 alongside WIPO. This year’s theme, “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate,” demonstrates how IP rights empower athletes, owners, and fans around the world, reflecting the role intellectual property rights play in pushing the boundaries and fostering innovation in the sporting industry and beyond. Sports exemplify how IP rights can protect and encourage innovative industries around the world. Intellectual property rights lay the groundwork necessary for promoting ingenuity, economic development, and culture. They protect creative ideas and innovations, such as artistic works, inventions, and symbols, ensuring that creators and businesses can be rewarded for their work. Unfortunately, there are a few activists and politicians who believe that IP is a harmful, that it limits innovation to favor the well-connected. Nothing could be further from the truth. IPRs are a crucial component of the marketplace and incentivizes all people to share their knowledge and work on their own terms. A global system centered on the protection of property rights, including intellectual property, is essential to sustaining a free, innovative, and prosperous economy. This is why the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) plays a critical role in enabling global IP protection. WIPO provides services that safeguard ideas and serves as an international forum for addressing emerging IP challenges. By supporting creators and equipping policymakers with rigorous data and analysis, WIPO helps ensure that intellectual property benefits people everywhere. Initiatives such as the International Property Rights Index (IPRI) further demonstrate the strong correlation between secure property rights a dynamic, prosperous economy. By protecting intellectual property, we empower creators, fuel innovation, and lay the foundation for sustained global prosperity. Intellectual Property Protection by the Numbers The 2025 International Property Rights Index reveals that the 126 countries included in the index represent 93% of the world’s population and account for 98% of global GDP.[1] Notably, the average per capita income disparity between the top and bottom quintile countries in the index is 21 times. This demonstrates the relationship between strong intellectual property rights and household income, reflecting the importance of maintaining these rights globally. The IPRI also exhibits a strong correlation with the Global Social Progress Index (0.90) and with the Global Entrepreneurship Index (0.88), demonstrating how property rights drive free enterprise and human development. Lastly, the IPRI displays a very strong correlation with the AI Preparedness Index (0.93) and the Global Knowledge Index (0.92), emphasizing how essential intellectual property rights are for a forward-looking society. The importance of IP rights cannot be understated, as it lays the foundations for a society that values personal liberties and incentivizes innovation. IP’s Importance in the Global Economy  Intellectual property is a cornerstone of free enterprise, fostering an environment that promotes innovation, economic growth, and individual liberty. By enabling innovators and creators to protect their ideas and investments, strong IP rights empower individuals and firms to invest, collaborate, and bring new technologies to the market. The societal benefits of robust IP protection are substantial and well-documented. The IPRI shows a clear correlation between strong IP frameworks and greater access to cutting-edge innovations in healthcare and technology, expanded economic opportunities, and more resilient labor markets. In the United States, IP-intensive industries support approximately 62.5 million jobs and contribute $7.8 trillion to the economy, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.[2] Workers in these sectors often earn higher wages, experience greater job stability, and benefit from specialized training and skill development. Intellectual property is also central to modern corporate value. The President’s Economic Report to Congress estimates that intellectual property accounts for roughly 70% of the value of publicly listed corporations, underscoring how deeply innovation is embedded in today’s economy.[3] This reliance on IP demonstrates its critical importance to businesses, workers, and consumers alike. A robust global IP protection is essential to fostering innovation and promoting long-term prosperity worldwide. Intellectual Property’s Role in Saving Lives In the healthcare field IP has fostered innovations that have saved lives and enabled affordable medicines. Over the last 25 years, innovators have delivered over 750 new medicines that treat illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, and rarer diseases, which have greatly extended life expectancy and improved quality of life.[4] Strong IP protections have been vital in fueling this industry and will continue to promote the over 8,000 medicines currently in development. Countries that lead in this research, to no surprise, have the strongest IP protections. In turn, these countries also have access to the newest medicines, U.S., which tops the IPRI list, has access to 85% of globally approved new medicines Additionally, a well-designed intellectual property system promotes competition and attracts both domestic and international investment, enabling firms to scale production, improve efficiency, and reduce costs over time. These dynamics help expand the availability of advanced medical technologies and treatments at more affordable prices. Strong IP protections also facilitate the transfer of technology from multinational firms to local innovators, strengthening healthcare infrastructure in developing countries and ensuring that new medical solutions meet high standards of quality and safety. By balancing incentives for innovation with long-term affordability, a secure IP framework supports sustainable advancements in healthcare, expands access to life-saving technologies, and drives economic growth within the biopharmaceutical and the broader medical sector. Conclusion On World Intellectual Property Day 2026, we reaffirm the essential role of intellectual property in advancing innovation, economic growth, and cultural vitality worldwide. Across sectors from sports and the creative industries to biopharmaceuticals and emerging technologies, strong IP frameworks enable creators and businesses to invest, collaborate, and deliver innovations that improve lives and connect societies. Intellectual property protections are not merely economic tools; they are foundational to sustainable development, expanded access to life-saving technologies and products, and the preservation of individual liberty and free enterprise. As global innovation accelerates, continued international cooperation remains vital to ensuring that IP systems remain balanced, effective, and inclusive. By safeguarding intellectual property, we empower creators, strengthen economies, and help build a future defined by progress, creativity, and shared prosperity. [1] https://internationalpropertyrightsindex.org [2] https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/economic-research/intellectual-property-and-us-economy#:~:text=On September 26%2C 2016%2C the,and radio and television broadcasting. [3] https://crigroup.com/intellectual-property-what-do-the-statistics-indicate/ [4] https://phrma.org/policy-issues/intellectual-property To sign, please click here and fill out the form by April 15th: Sign here

Property Rights Alliance | 722 12th Street, NW 4th Floor | Washington, DC 20005 US

1. Hayek’s Views on Intellectual Property; Tucker, “Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation“; Tucker, “Hayek on Patents and Copyrights“; Salerno, Hayek Contra Copyright Laws. [↩]
2. Hoppe on Hayek; Hoppe, “The Hayek Myth” (PFS 2012); Hoppe, F.A. Hayek on Government and Social Evolution: A Critique, in The Great Fiction); Hoppe, Murray N. Rothbard and the Ethics of Liberty; Hoppe, Why Mises (and not Hayek)?; Block, “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom”.  [↩]
3. Classifying Patent and Copyright Law as “Property”: So What?; The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property; The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists; Objectivists: “All Property is Intellectual Property”; A Recurring Fallacy: “IP is a Purer Form of Property than Material Resources”; Kinsella, “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), Part IV.I. In particular, references in notes 75-76 et pass.; KOL229 | Ernie Hancock Show: IP Debate with Alan Korwin: “Korwin’s Defense and Departure (49:59–1:17:42) … Korwin doubles down, arguing that copyright is a natural right, more real than physical property because it’s a unique creation.”; Richard Epstein on “The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property” (Mises 2006). [↩]
4. “Intellectual Property Advocates Hate Competition.” [↩]
5. See Independent Institute on the “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection and others in resoures listed in the post. [↩]
6.  Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse?; “Where does IP Rank Among the Worst State Laws?”; The Patent Holocaust; “Masnick on the Horrible PROTECT IP Act: The Coming IPolice State”; “Death by Copyright-IP Fascist Police State Acronym”. [↩]
7. Quoted in Hayek’s Views on Intellectual Property. See also Tucker, “Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation“; Tucker, “Hayek on Patents and Copyrights“; Salerno, Hayek Contra Copyright Laws. [↩]
8. Quoted in Tucker, “Hayek on Patents and Copyrights“; Salerno, Hayek Contra Copyright Laws. [↩]
9. Quoted in Salerno, Hayek Contra Copyright Laws. [↩]
10. See Mises on Intellectual Property; Hoppe on Intellectual Property; on Rothbard, see Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (March 2, 2026), at n.46, citing Kinsella, “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society,” Part III.C, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), and “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Marianne Thejls Ziegler and Christoph Lütge, eds., Robert McGee, section ed. (Springer, forthcoming 2026), Part III.C.2 and n. 73. [↩]
11. Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework.” [↩]
12. Intellectual Property versus Intellectual Property Rights. [↩]
13. “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” Mises Daily (July 28, 2010); Patent Rights Web Poll; and Brian Doherty, “Intellectual Property: Dying Among Libertarians?,” Reason Online (8.2.2010). [↩]
14. See Program: Armchair Conversation on ”The Future of Freedom and Technology”  (Houston, Texas, April 16, 2026). “In light of today’s evolving geopolitical landscape, ongoing economic shocks, and disruptions to energy supply and security, this discussion will explore the future of freedom in an increasingly technology-driven world. The Speakers, Per Bylund, Barbara Kolm, and John Constable, will examine the implications of dual-use technologies, the role of monetary policy, and the importance of preserving economic and individual freedom, with additional insights from a European perspective. Moderated by Jay Johnson, the conversation will address key themes such as artificial intelligence, property rights, and capitalism, linking these to real-world challenges and highlighting the critical role of innovation.” This is co-sponsored by AIER’s “Harwood Salons,” was recently re-named; this group previously had the far superior name Bastiat Society. All these unproductive, richly-endowed foundations and institutes keep changing names of their programs. I guess the employees need to demonstrated they are doing something. The Mises Institute in 1995 revived the great interdisciplinary Austrian Scholars Conference, which was very popular and successful. Then about 15 years later or so, for no good reason, they changed it to the AERC, Austrian Economics Research Conference and the occasional Libertarian Scholars Conference, only to finally merge them back together but now charging two fees. Maybe that’s the reason. And they had the Mises Daily, which had that name after I told Jeffrey Tucker that these articles needed a publication name for citation purposes; now it’s been renamed for some reason Mises Wire. Whatever.  [↩]