Related:
Gratifying that my first patent law boss and mentor from 1993–1994, Bill Norvell, has become an anti-IP convert.
A recent email from Bill, and my response: [continue reading…]
Related:
Rob Wicks called to my attention The Patent Bay. Not quite sure what is is just yet, but it seems to be an attempt to limit the aggressive use of patents by having members pledges not to assert its patents against other members of the pool. From the home page:
Non-Assertion Patent Pledge
AB SKF (“SKF”) is committed to promoting innovation and helping move the world forward. SKF won’t be able move the world forward alone. That’s why SKF is collaborating with other forward-thinking companies and actors to tackle some of the most pressing challenges of our time. This is made possible through its wholly owned subsidiary ThePatentBay AB.
As a result, each respective Pledge Contributor (as defined below) pledges the free use of its respective Pledged Patents (as defined below) on the following terms. The Patent Pledge (as defined below) is legally binding, irrevocable and enforceable against the Pledge Contributor being the owner of the so Pledged Patents, unless otherwise provided herein. Any Pledge Recipient (as defined below) wishing to make use of any Pledged Patents may do so on the terms set out below.
…
1.1 Patent pledge
Subject to the terms set forth herein, each respective Pledge Contributor commits perpetually and indefinitely not to assert any of its respective rights under the Pledged Patents contributed by such Pledge Contributor against a Pledge Recipient, subject to what is set forth hereunder in section 1.1. By using any Pledged Patent, the Pledge Recipient accepts and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Non-Assertion Patent Pledge in relation to the Pledge Contributor contributing such Pledged Patent, provided that the Pledge Contributor has not previously granted the Pledge Recipient a license to such Pledged Patent under different terms. Each Pledge Contributor hereby accepts that these terms constitute a binding agreement with each Pledge Recipient who uses its Pledged Patents.
I am not sure if this is really legally binding or practical, but anything anti-patent is good.
See also related ideas in The Patent Defense League and Defensive Patent Pooling.
Related:
Ejan Mackaay, “Economic Incentives in Markets for Information and Innovation,” Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 13, no. 3 (Summer 1990): 867–910. This was part of the “Symposium: Intellectual Property” published in vol. 13, no. 3 (Summer 1990) of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which also included: [continue reading…]
See Bylund, Minarchism Is Statism Lite. Per Bylund, “Minarchism Is Statism Lite,” Mises Wire (Nov. 4, 2025):
It may be true that lovers of liberty, originally steeped in society’s preferred form of social democracy, must travel along the spectrum of the state via small (“minimal”) before reaching the conclusion that the state must go. But logically, this is not the case. To cure cancer, it is not necessary to reduce the size of a tumor bit by bit. The cure is to remove it. Similarly, if a rock upsets the flow of a stream, the solution is not to change the size or shape of the rock, to make it more streamlined, but to simply remove it. [continue reading…]
From Catalaxia: Against Intellectual Property (Formal Proof) catalaxia Substack, (nov 12, 2025)
I propose to question the justification of intellectual property based on a formal reasoning that establishes concepts of “good”, “use”, “authority”, “property” and “abundance”, among others. The formal system is structured by means of definitions and axioms that, together and with some premises, attempt to demonstrate solidly (solid deductive argument) that the assignment of exclusive property rights (especially in the context of abstracted ideas or properties) leads to contradictions when considering goods that are abundant (i.e., susceptible of being used simultaneously by different agents). [continue reading…]
Sebastian Wang, “Review of Against Intellectual Property by N. Stephan Kinsella,” Libertarian Alliance [UK] Blog (March 25, 2025).
Kinsella, Stephan. The Problem with Intellectual Property. Papinian Press Occasional Paper, No. 2. Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, May 15, 2025 (v.1.1). 30pp. ISBN Ebook 979-8-9890306-8-2. Available online at C4SIF. Published under Creative Commons Zero (CC0).
Stephan Kinsella’s The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025) is a concise but thorough demolition of the case for patents and copyrights. It draws upon the author’s decades of scholarship and advocacy to set out with clarity why intellectual property (IP) is not property at all, but a state-created distortion of genuine ownership. In doing so, it strengthens a long tradition of Austrian and libertarian criticism of monopoly privileges. [continue reading…]
Related:
I’ve complained over the years that many libertarian scholars and writers—often academics and intellectuals who publish scholarly books and journal articles—make the mistake of publishing with commercial or, worse, academic publishing houses that paywall their work. They spend all this effort to develop theory and spread the word of liberty, but then don’t even bother to try to make it easily accessible online. In my view they should put up a free PDF at the very least, and either negotiate permission with the publisher or journal or select a journal that publishes online for free, like the Journal of Libertarian Studies, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Reason Papers, The Independent Review, or various open access journals (there are many of these; see this Grok summary). Unfortunately, other journals in our space, shamefully, are paywalled and closed, e.g. the Review of Austrian Economics and Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. The RAE used to be open when published by the Mises Institute, but when Rothbard died in 1995, the Mises Institute switched the QJAE and turned the RAE over to the Hayekians at George Mason or something who then moved to a closed, paywalled model. [continue reading…]
The USPTO director and Japan’s patent office just rejected Nintendo’s claims to own “throw ball to catch monster” and “manual/auto battle” — citing games from 2002–2017. This isn’t justice — it’s the patent system admitting it failed, only after a tiny studio spent millions defending itself. If basic gameplay can be patented, innovation is dead. Abolish IP before it abolishes creativity.
HUGE blow to Nintendo: head of U.S. patent office takes RARE step to order reexamination of “summon subcharacter and let it fight in 1 of 2 modes” patent – games fray
Albert Esplugas Boter, “The Monopoly of Ideas: Against Intellectual Property,” Libertarian Alliance (UK) (9 Nov. 2025)
Libertarian Alliance (UK)
9 Nov. 2025
by Albert Esplugas Boter
Translated by Juan I. Núñez
This article was originally published in liberalismo.org, on July 11th, 2005, and a revised version was later featured on Procesos de mercado: revista europea de economía política, N°. 1, 2006 (pp 47-104).
“[T]he attempt to generate profit opportunities by legislatively limiting access to certain ideal goods, and therefore to mimic the market processes governing the allocation of tangible goods, contains a fatal contradiction: It violates the rights to tangible goods, the very rights that provide the legal foundations with which markets begin.” [continue reading…]
Excellent new article: Sebastian Wang, “Intellectual Property: Natural Right or State Privilege?“, Libertarian Alliance (UK) (27 October, 2025)
Related:
Re: “Gordon (1993) argues that the chain of title for intellectual property is cleaner than for tangible property”:
Related:
Juan I. Núñez, “Counterfeit Property: The Ethics and Contradictions of Intellectual Property,” Libertarian Alliance (UK) (29 October, 2025):
Intellectual property (IP) law is a near-universal feature of the modern world. Through international bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and treaties such as the Paris Convention, a global enforcement regime has steadily been constructed since the late 19th century up until today. Such is the perceived importance and reach of IP that even nations nominally opposed to private property, like the former Soviet Union, have historically ratified and participated in this system, serving as a testament to IP’s uniquely resilient status.[1]
Few concepts in the modern world are as overlooked, and as unquestioned, as intellectual property. It has become a sacred cow, protected by the cultural assumption that owning an idea is ethically indistinguishable from owning a house. And while the origins of this belief are complex, its hold on the public imagination is undeniable. It is not merely a law, but an intuition, deeply ingrained by the sheer inertia of its existence.
Arguments for intellectual property typically spring from three philosophical wells. First are the utilitarians, who argue that IP is a necessary legal construct to incentivize innovation and the creation of art. Second is the Hegelian defense, which justifies IP through the metaphysical claim that a creator’s will is objectively embodied in their ideas—IP as a moral necessity. Finally, and most central to our discussion, is the Lockean or natural rights tradition, which contends that creators have a just property right in their work as an extension of their person.
Hey guys Sithis here in this video i’m going to explain Why I believe we should Abolish intellectual property. The dictionary definition for Intellectual property is a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc. In other words it is When the state grants a monopoly privilege over an idea Allowing the restriction of others to copy that idea Using their own private property. [continue reading…]
Related:
As I’ve noted previously,1 Hans-Hermann Hoppe fully agrees with me that intellectual property law is completely unjust. In fact he was already solid on this as early as 1988, well before I was—I didn’t adopt my current views until I started looking into the issue around 1993 when I decided to become a patent attorney—(( My first publications on IP include Letter on Intellectual Property Rights, IOS Journal 5, no. 2 (June 1995), pp. 12-13; “Is Intellectual Property Legitimate?“, Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter 1 (Winter 1998): 3; republished in the Federalist Society’s Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter, vol. 3, Issue 3 (Winter 2000); and In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule, September 4, 2000, LewRockwell.com. )) when he appeared on a panel discussion with Hoppe, Rothbard, David Gordon, and Leland Yeager. In that discussion, there was the following exchange: [continue reading…]
Related:
Martin Kulldorff, “The Rise and Fall of Scientific Journals and a Way Forward,” Brownstone Journal (Oct. 14, 2025)
Scientific journals have had enormous positive impact on the development of science, but in some ways, they are now hampering rather than enhancing open scientific discourse. After reviewing the history and current problems with journals, a new academic publishing model is proposed. It embraces open access and open rigorous peer review, it rewards reviewers for their important work with honoraria and public acknowledgement, and it allows scientists to publish their research in a timely and efficient manner without wasting valuable scientists’ time and resources. [continue reading…]
The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF) is dedicated to building public awareness of the manner in which so-called “intellectual property” (IP) laws and policies impede innovation, creativity, communication, learning, knowledge, emulation, and information sharing. We are for property rights, free markets, competition, commerce, cooperation, and the voluntary sharing of knowledge, and oppose IP laws, which systematically impede or hamper innovation. IP law should be completely and immediately abolished.
We provide news commentary and analysis and scholarly resources from our unique pro-property, pro-market, pro-innovation perspective.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (Stupid Patnets)
Follow Us!