Hi Stephan, I know you are a big objector to Intellectual Property. And I would be glad if you would review my argument against the existence of Intellectual Property. I formulated an argument with formal logic (using modal operators and model theory). (1/2)
Not sure I can follow it as I have never liked or found symbolic logic useful at all, esp. for arguments like this which I believe require words and the richness of language and concepts. But here it is FWIW. [continue reading…]
I asked both versions of Grok (Twitter/x version and Grok.com) to prepare a summary and analysis of The Problem with Intellectual Property (Papinian Press Working Paper #2). They are somewhat different so I paste them both below (after asking Grok to prepare an HTML version for me to preserve formatting that is otherwise lost when I copy and paste). [continue reading…]
Below is the first draft of a working paper published under the Papinian Press Working Papers series. I expect a version of this to be published later this year as “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Marianne Thejls Ziegler and Christoph Lütge, eds. (Springer, forthcoming 2025; Robert McGee, section ed.). This is a totally new piece which replace my contribution in the first edition of the Handbook, Stephan Kinsella, “The Case Against Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics (Prof. Dr. Christoph Lütge, ed.; Springer, 2013) (chapter 68, in Part 18, “Property Rights: Material and Intellectual,” Robert McGee, section ed.)
Files: pdf; word. Here is quick-and-dirty and uneditedepub converted automatically from the word file.
O’Keeffe is right to call for scaling back patent protection as real solution here, as they are a primary driver of absurdly high drug prices. Given that patents exist and cause the price of pharmaceuticals to be higher than market prices, however, I am not sure that a government price control (which I do not see clearly being proposed by Trump’s Executive Order anyway)1 would have the same effects as price controls of market prices.
And since Big Pharma lobbies for and takes advantage of the state’s patent system, I would not shed tears for them being subject to antitrust or other regulations. After all, the state hands out patents to allow companies to charge monopoly prices but then schizophrenically penalizes monopoly prices with its antitrust laws. Hence, the patent grant comes with a sort of built in limitation: don’t take too much advantage of this evil patent right we are giving you, or we might come after you. The fact that they are selling drugs in other markets at a fraction of the cost, and still at a profit, presumably, is a good indicator that they are, indeed, “abusing” the patent right they are given.
After people have grasped what the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) is and understand the basic implications of establishing this principle as law it is not hard to see what of our current society would remain the same and what would change. [continue reading…]
Overall I agree that IP is greatly overhyped but I’d not agree (at this stage) to abolish it entirely. Also, drawing a theoretical link between obesity and… https://t.co/OghrUyjip3
See his post Sanjeev Sabhlok, “Against intellectual property? – a placeholder post,” Sanjeev Sabhlok’s blog: Thoughts on economics and liberty (Oct. 26, 2016), and also the pro-IP post by Rogan that he links. Both below.
In a report in The New York Times this week, judges, scholars and executives said that in technology fields, “the marketplace for new ideas has been corrupted by software patents used as destructive weapons.” But certainly the protections for intellectual property – like pharmaceuticals, movies and other inventions – also fuel creativity, in part by giving investors enough confidence to open their wallets.
On balance, does intellectual property law encourage or discourage innovation?
Intellectual property law is supposed to spur experimentation, PM contributor and Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds writes, not deter it. But the patent and copyright laws of yesteryear are ill-equipped for the world of 2013.
“Too much of a good thing,” Mae West supposedly said, “can be wonderful.” Is that true? Maybe in some cases, but probably not where patents and copyrights are concerned. [continue reading…]
Paragraph 1 (0:00-1:34): The speaker begins by engaging the audience in singing “Happy Birthday to You,” revealing afterward that it’s not actually their birthday and that performing the song publicly could be illegal due to its copyright status (1:12-1:29). This serves as an entry point to discuss the broader topic of copyright and patents, which are legal tools designed to promote innovation and creativity (1:37-1:40). The speaker emphasizes that the purpose of these systems is to ensure more innovation, with exclusive rights being merely a means to that end (1:49-2:02). They propose evaluating the intellectual property system through three questions: Is the theory valid? Does it work empirically? And is it fair? (2:13-2:32).
Paragraph 2 (1:46-4:57): The speaker critiques the theoretical flaws of intellectual property, starting with the absurdity of enforcing copyright for “Happy Birthday to You,” a song nearly a century old by deceased authors, which fails to promote creativity (2:43-3:07). They highlight the blurred line between imitation and innovation by comparing “Happy Birthday” to “Good Morning to You,” noting that the distinction between a copy and an original is problematic (3:17-4:24). This rigid separation ignores the reality that innovation often builds on imitation, creating a continuum rather than a dichotomy (4:27-4:46). Additionally, the theory overlooks the role of distributors, who profit disproportionately (e.g., Warner Music Group earning $2 million in 2008 from “Happy Birthday”) while artists receive minimal benefits (5:01-5:48).
Paragraph 3 (5:54-8:52): Turning to empirical evidence, the speaker argues that intellectual property may hinder innovation. They point to the software industry, where open-source models, free of intellectual property restrictions, consistently outperform proprietary systems like Microsoft (6:26-7:04). In healthcare, they challenge the notion that patents are essential, noting that over 90% of major medical breakthroughs occurred without intellectual property involvement (7:17-7:50). Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies often prioritize “Me Too” patents—minor tweaks to existing drugs—over groundbreaking research, misusing their monopoly power (8:01-8:46). This suggests that intellectual property may slow innovation rather than foster it.
Paragraph 4 (8:55-12:39): The speaker questions the fairness of intellectual property from an evolutionary perspective, arguing that human culture thrives on trust and the sharing of ideas, which intellectual property restricts by promoting ownership and monetization (8:55-10:13). They compare this to the flawed mercantilism system, which prioritized exports over imports, ignoring their interdependence (10:16-10:49). The impact is evident in cultural production, where 80% of 20th-century works remain locked under copyright, limiting access and creativity (10:55-11:43). The speaker advocates for a system that encourages sharing and modifying works, like playful derivatives of “Happy Birthday,” to foster innovation without fear of criminalization (11:56-12:33).
I was sightseeing earlier this week in Istanbul with my friends Greg Morin and Jay Baykal, a local. There were knockoff clothes and purses everywhere—in the Grand Bazaar, in the streets nearby, and so on. As I’ve pointed out before, trademark law is unjust.1 It prohibits the sale of goods even when the consumers are not defrauded or confused—everyone knows that they are buying imitations.
We were looking at some of the cheaper knockoffs and Jay told me that the really good ones are more expensive and are so good you can’t even tell—these are called “genuine fakes.” Great expression. Down with IP. [continue reading…]
The state regulates pharmaceuticals by laws and regulations that require prescriptions, FDA approvals, and so on. It distorts the market by regulating healthcare—inflating the price of insurance by prohibiting insurers taking into account pre-existing conditions, by tax rules that remove consumer choice from the payment, and so on. It inflates the prices of pharmaceuticals by granting patents and by imposing the huge regulatory burdens and cost of the FDA process, and by increasing demand for such pharmaceuticals from Medicare and Medicaid purchases. And then it tries to “negotiate” for lower prices, which causes much squawking.
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!