Patent holders just hate any challenges to their state-granted patent monopolies.1 They want their IP rights to be treated like “property rights,”2 and never challenged, either administratively or in court, so that they can be “relied upon”3 and serve as more effective weapons to threaten and extort their victims.4 They also hate legislative proposals that would make it more difficult to engage in patent trolling,5 such as The Litigation Transparency Act of 20256 or the more recent bill proposed by Representative Daryl Issa, The Protecting Third Party Litigation Funding from Abuse Act.7[continue reading…]
US Inventor, INVENTOR RIGHTS RESOLUTION, which, in crayon, writes “The USPTO MUST NOT REVIEW AN ISSUED PATENT WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE INVENTOR.” [↩]
See also “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) [Audio: KOL445]. [↩]
Jeffrey Tucker’s recent article, “Small Steps Toward Medical Freedom,” The Epoch Times (Jan. 6, 2026) has several provocative “urgent priorities for U.S. medical-insurance reform”. Writes Tucker: [continue reading…]
These geniuses seem to attack capitalism and lack of competition, and identify some extensions or uses patent and copyright (intellectual property), but they do not condemn IP per se. No one can ever clearly see the problem or strike at the root. https://t.co/jPzMozEwFn…
“advocates for IP often cannot distinguish patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret from each other (and yet support them anyway)” The Problem with Intellectual Property, n.30
“IP has nothing to do with plagiarism or fraud. This is a common confusion, often deliberately and dishonestly spread by those with vested IP interests trying to defend IP law; or by people who are ignorant about the differences yet feel compelled to pontificate on this topic in public anyway.” Intellectual Property Discussion with Mark Skousen
Art doesn’t belong to the artist even before it’s public. Information is not ownable since it does not exist independently, it needs a substrate or carrier; it is just the way an underlying object is arranged or impatterned. The physical object itself which is impatterned is…
Which Path for Patent Challenges? The USPTO’s “One-Challenge” NPRM for Inter Partes Review (Nov. 20, 2025), a recent Federalist Society panel webinar discussing the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant changes to how inter partes review (IPR) petitions are instituted. [continue reading…]
The court will hear its big copyright case for the year during the first week of the December session, when on Monday, Dec. 1, it reviews a billion-dollar ruling against Cox Communications based on its failure to eradicate copyright infringement by its customers.
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.
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…]
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…]
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.
Follow Us!