Related:

• Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Artificial Intelligence and IP
• The Patent Holocaust
• Whereupon Grok admits it (and AI) is severely gimped by copyright law
• The Problem with Intellectual Property
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property
• Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), Part IV
• Report: AI, copyright and the creative industries (PDF)
• Report: AI, copyright and the creative industries (HTML)
• Inquiry: AI and copyright 
• Communications and Digital Committee

The UK’s House of Lords [sic] Communications and Digital Committee has released a little report, titled “AI, copyright and the creative industries” (HL Paper 267, 4th Report of Session 2024–26) (March 6, 2026). See this tweet and the press release below. No time to read yet, but a quick and dirty Grok analysis is provided below (I better use AI before these maniacs kill it).

[continue reading…]

[From my Webnote series]

• IP isn’t about owning ideas; those who oppose ownership of ideas are commies, in Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property
• A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, at n.31
• The Problem with Intellectual Property, Part III.A.3
• IP is Not “Not Property”
• “On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources”
• KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)
• KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property, Loyola University—New Orleans, at Slide 29
• Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection, at notes 3 and 5
• Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward, at n.69
• Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property
• Owning Ideas, Owning Bitcoin, Owning Fiat Dollars
• Another way to explain the problem with IP: Resources v. Knowledge; Ownership v. Possession
• Munger on Property Rights in Words and Information
• other posts and articles on the impossibility of “owning ideas.“
• Related: on owning Bitcoin: KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019); Armoutidis, Who Owns Public Property? Libertarian Property Theory and the Problem of Immigration

From Kinsella on Liberty Podcast:

KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property, Loyola University—New Orleans

by STEPHAN KINSELLA on FEBRUARY 25, 2026 EDIT

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 483.

I delivered the following lecture yesterday: “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property,” Loyola Economics Club and Louisiana Mu chapter of Omicron Delta Epsilon, Loyola University—New Orleans, Miller Hall (12:30 pm–1:45 pm, Feb. 24, 2026). Hosts were the aforementioned Econ club and econ honor society, as well as Walter Block and Leo Krasnozhon. ¹ Audio for the Q&A portion was poor due to some technical mishaps, but has been boosted as much as possible.

Slides streamed below.

Read more>>

Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Doing Business Without Intellectual Property,” The Epoch Times (Feb. 18, 2026) (archive). He stole¹ the title of my tract Do Business Without Intellectual Property (which he encouraged me to write when he was at LFB).

Writes Tucker:

The topic of intellectual property (IP) is a difficult one, a point that requires serious thought to understand in its fullness. It’s become the subject of debate with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). The products of LLM (large language model) are not subject to copyright control and this is by design: open sourcing is a precondition for wide distribution and acceptance. Indeed, most of the top entrepreneurs working on AI have spoken out against intellectual property and even called for its abolition.

Of course IP is a threat to AI;² it’s a threat to human life in general.³ [continue reading…]

1. Tongue in cheek, of course. Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off ; Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”. [↩]
2.  Whereupon Grok admits it (and AI) is severely gimped by copyright law; Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Artificial Intelligence and IP. [↩]
3. The Patent Holocaust;  Because of her error, Ayn Rand chose IP over real property rights, she chose death over life; The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism (“It is obscene to undermine the glorious operation of the market in producing wealth and abundance by imposing artificial scarcity on human knowledge and learning (see “IP and Artificial Scarcity“). Learning, emulation, and information are good. It is good that information can be reproduced, retained, spread, and taught and learned and communicated so easily. Granted, we cannot say that it is bad that the world of physical resources is one of scarcity — this is the way reality is, after all — but it is certainly a challenge, and it makes life a struggle. It is suicidal and foolish to try to hamper one of our most important tools — learning, emulation, knowledge — by imposing scarcity on it. Intellectual property is theft. Intellectual property is statism. Intellectual property is death. Give us intellectual freedom instead!” Patents are death. Patents are slavery. See Roderick Long: Owning Ideas Means Owning People; The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights). [↩]

Patent shill and buffoon Gene Quinn, of IP Watchdog, has a new podcast episode out:

Shownotes: [continue reading…]

Related:

• Pharmaceutical Shills and Think Tank Corruption: Sally Pipes’s The World’s Medicine Chest: How America Achieved Pharmaceutical Supremacy―and How to Keep It
• Intellectual Property and Think Tank Corruption

I’ve pointed out before how many allegedly free market groups are pro-patent (and pro-IP in general), e.g. the Federalist Society, Cato, Independent Institute, and others.¹ As I wrote previously,

I’ve learned from reliable sources connected with various free market think tanks around the world that various important companies, in particular pharmaceutical, have become “supporters” of such think tanks–provided, of course, that the think tank supports intellectual property rights. Could this be one reason many free market think tanks are supportive of IP despite a mounting case against it?

I wonder if this is one reason for some of Cato’s pro-patent positions.²

A friend suggested Reason is also influenced by pharmaceutical donors, send me a Grok report that says [continue reading…]

1. Pharmaceutical Shills and Think Tank Corruption: Sally Pipes’s The World’s Medicine Chest: How America Achieved Pharmaceutical Supremacy―and How to Keep It.  [↩]
2. Intellectual Property and Think Tank Corruption. [↩]

Some of these linked from 6 talks about problems with patents (Dec. 10, 2012). The links were bad but here is what I found at TED:

Johanna Blakley, Lessons from fashion’s free culture, TEDxUSC (April 2010)

A songwriting battle with my AI clone, Jason “Poo Bear” Boyd, Elise Hu | TEDNext 2025 • November 2025 [continue reading…]

Related

• Jeff Tucker: Doing Business Without Intellectual Property
• Whereupon Grok admits it (and AI) is severely gimped by copyright law
• Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Artificial Intelligence and IP
• Patent Trolls, Bad Patents, and Incompetent Examiners are Not the Problem
• Gary North on the 3D Printing Threat to Patent Law
• The Rise of 3D Printing pushes the State closer to the Absurd Logical Conclusions of Intellectual Property and Copyright
• IP in a World Without Scarcity
• Pharmaceutical “Printers” and Patents
• The IP War on 3D Printing Begins
• Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental infringement | Damien Riehl
• 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
• Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off

[continue reading…]

Related

• Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property

Nozick was bad on IP: he was confused and weakly in favor of some form of patent law; very diletanttish reasoning, as often is the case for Nozick. See William Fisher, “Theories of Intellectual Property” (2), in Stephen Munzer, ed., New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge University Press, 2001), text at n.5. Also Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974), p. 182: “independent inventors, upon whom the burden of proving independent discovery may rest, should not be excluded from utilizing their own invention as they wish (including selling it to others).” On Nozick’s dilettantism and “razzle-dazzle,” see Kinsella, Afterword to Hoppe’s The Great Fiction, Second Expanded Edition, and Hoppe, Murray N. Rothbard and the Ethics of Liberty. [continue reading…]

The author recently sent me this.

Fuzz: The Permissionless Patronage Protocol

Abstract: We propose a permissionless patronage protocol. A publisher shares a work and a public address. A subscriber contributes to the publisher through a distributor. The contribution is recorded and can be verified in a trust-minimized way. The cost for both the subscriber and the publisher to switch between distributors is zero.

Full post below. [continue reading…]

Related:

• The Problem with Intellectual Property
• Patent Trolls, Bad Patents, and Incompetent Examiners are Not the Problem
• Haman Nature: None of us hate patent trolls nearly enough. In fact, all of IP has serious flaws that need fixing – or abolishing
• Patent troll (wikipedia)
• NPE Showcase – Leigh Rothschild
• Valve Corporation v. Rothschild et al, No. 2:2023cv01016 – Document 56 (W.D. Wash. 2024) (Justia)
• Washington State patent troll prevention act
  • Federal court rules Washington state anti-patent troll law does not violate First Amendment
  • See Grok summary (below)

Gemini summary from the Asmongold video: [continue reading…]

From Bitcoin magazine. I like his term “legacy fiat intellectual property rights”.

From Patently-O. Typical. The state protects its contractors from patent infringement liability and its only liability is to pay compensation. It cannot be enjoined. See 28 U.S. Code § 1498. Of course the whole thing makes no sense: the FedGov grants patents to applicants; this impedes innovation and drives up prices for consumers; and if the patentee sues the FedGov it harms the taxpayers again by printing money and giving it to the patentee.

by Dennis Crouch

The War Industry (formerly Defense) heavily invests in new technology and patents. But, we see very few patent infringement lawsuits. A key reason is 28 U.S.C. § 1498. That statute channels patent infringement claims involving government-authorized work away from private defendants and into the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, with the United States as the sole defendant (and a reasonable royalty as the only remedy). For government contractors and subcontractors, § 1498 operates as a powerful shield: if the infringing activity was performed “for the Government” and “with the authorization or consent of the Government,” the patent holder’s only remedy is a compensation action against the United States. The contractor walks free. This design reflects a deliberate policy choice. The government pays heavily for technology development with taxpayer dollars and, in exchange, retains control as the key point person – and it allows the administration to resolve patent disputes as it sees fit.

In Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., No. 2021-2049 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2026) (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit affirmed su

Read more>>