C4SIF.org

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

https://gamesfray.com/huge-blow-for-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/ [continue reading…]

Albert Esplugas Boter, “The Monopoly of Ideas: Against Intellectual Property,” Libertarian Alliance (UK) (9 Nov. 2025)

The Monopoly of Ideas: Against Intellectual Property

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 11^th, 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”:

• The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists
• Munger on Property Rights in Words and Information
• A Recurring Fallacy: “IP is a Purer Form of Property than Material Resources”
• The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property
• New Working Paper: Machan on IP
• Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory: Transcript

[continue reading…]

Related:

• The Problem with Intellectual Property (on Hegel’s “personality theory” of IP)
• Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property
• Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• c4sif Galambos posts; StephanKinsella.com Galambos posts

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.

Read more>>

Script:

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:

• Hoppe on Intellectual Property
• The Problem with Intellectual Property,
•  The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,
• Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property
• The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism
• The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism
• Public License for the Works of George Reisman
• George Reisman’s Program of Self-Education in the Economic Theory and Political Philosophy of Capitalism
• Trademark Ain’t So Hot Either…; Trademark and Fraud; Discussion with George Reisman
• Reisman on Patents, Competition, and Declining Prices
• Jeffrey A. Tucker on Intellectual Property
• Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward

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…]

1. Hoppe on Intellectual Property. [↩]

Related:

• On Leading by Example and the Power of Attraction (Open Source Publishing, Creative Commons, Public Domain Publishing)
• Libertarian Papers (About)
  • Welcome to Libertarian Papers!
  • “Fifteen Minutes that Changed Libertarian Publishing” (2)
• Doug French, “The Intellectual Revolution Is in Process“
• Academic publishers have become the enemies of science: yet more real piracy
• The Academic Publishing Paywall Copyright Subsidized Racket
• The digital publishing revolution starts now
• Tucker, The Magic of Open-Source Publishing
• Jeff Tucker Free Talk Live Interview on Open Information and IP
• “A Theory of Open” (archived comments)
• B.K. Marcus, Mises.org on iTunes U
• Doug French, The Intellectual Revolution Is in Process (archived blog comments)
• Kinsella, “Teaching an Online Mises Academy Course”
• Gary North, “A Free Week-Long Economics Seminar”
• “up with iTunes U”
• Jeff Tucker Free Talk Live Interview on Open Information and IP
• Mises.org in the Context of Publishing History
• Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation (archived comments)
• Tucker, “Authors: Beware of Copyright,” “Books, Online and Off” and “Mises.org in the Context of Publishing History,” in Bourbon for Breakfast (Mises Institute, 2010)

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…]

Related:

• Masnick on Innovation vs. Invention; on Irrelevant and Nonrigorous Distinctions: Innovation, Invention, Ideas, Knowledge, Data, Discovery…
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright
• The Problem with Intellectual Property

I noticed several people today tweeting about Joel Mokyr and his distinction between prescriptive and propositional knowledge. [continue reading…]

Most people do not understand that IP law is domestic only, which is why it is nonsensical to say that China is “stealing” western “IP”.¹ Most countries have IP protection, primarily because of Western, primarily US, IP imperialism and bullying, mostly at the behest of Big Pharma (patents) and Hollywood and the music industry/RIAA (copyright) which have forced other countries to adopt American-style IP, to their detriment.² But any country that chooses not to have IP rights and does not protect inventions and and artistic works does not violate others’ property rights, any more than insecure property rights in North Korea violates property rights in Texas. (IP supporters do not understand that this is a difference between real property rights and fake IP rights, since if your property right in material resources in a given jurisdiction are secure–in your home, in your body, in your car–then what other people do in some lawless regime simply cannot violate your property rights; yet they somehow think “China” can “steal” Western property rights by failing to enforce them locally. This alone shows that IP rights are not “similar to” real property rights. But let this pass.)³ [continue reading…]

1. The China Stealing IP Myth; Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft”; Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off. [↩]
2. The Mountain of IP Legislation. [↩]
3.  The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property. [↩]

[From my Webnote series]

From Recent tweets:

Why the patent system is arguably worse than the Holocaust. It has killed orders of magnitude more people. https://t.co/NN0ASWN2Lw

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 9, 2025

[continue reading…]

For my friend George Reisman, I have hosted his Program of Self-Education in the Economic Theory and Political Philosophy of Capitalism lectures as well as his Pepperdine lectures on my site and youtube until he can get his old site Capitalism.net refurbished. He’s Objectivist so is in favor of IP (see Capitalism, excerpts below). Naturally, we disagree on this issue; see Trademark Ain’t So Hot Either…; Trademark and Fraud; Discussion with George Reisman; Trademark and Fraud; also The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression). From Macro Lecture 14A Inflation I  [mp3]:

He states:

the consequence of that is that Capital will move from the low profit lines into the high profit lines that expands production in those lines in order to find buyers for the additional goods what has to happen to prices play come down when costs fall unless it’s a patented process or a secret technology in fairly short order prices are going to come down to correspondwith the lower costs and so if we had a wage rates broadly falling that would reduce costs and prices would decline commensurately when you have improvements in the productivity of Labor prices also decline and perhaps the most dramatic example in our own experience is the prices of a megabyte or a gigabyte of a hard drive space or of ram what’s happened to these things over the last 20 years prices diminish tremendously  …

[continue reading…]

Related

• Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Artificial Intelligence and IP
• Whereupon Grok admits it (and AI) is severely gimped by copyright law
• Other AI posts

Mohamad Albakjaji and Reem Almarzouqi, “The Dilemma of the Copyrights of Artificial Intelligence,” International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD) 16, no.1 (2024): 1-15 (official)

Abstract:

Artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) share some key similarities, such as uncertainty in predictions, processing a massive amount of data, and machine learning. Yet, they also differ from each other. This paper provides background information on how these two domains have evolved over time. It also highlights how Saudi Arabia’s IP system differs from those of other countries. Furthermore, this article explores the relationship between AI and IP and their application in copyright. This study is significant as it helps identify the challenges and opportunities that AI presents with respect to IP in terms of copyright. Finally, this article makes recommendations that will help protect both AI and IP.

[continue reading…]

New Mexico trademark:

• News and Rumors on the LNC-LPNM Litigation
• Statement of Alicia Dearn on the LPNM-LNC Lawsuit
• LNC Gains Preliminary Injunction in New Mexico
• Filings in the New Mexico Litigation, LNC v LPNM
• Thompson vs. McMahon on LNC Public re: LPNM
• Interesting Asides to the LNC-LPNM Litigation
• FW: Recent New Mexico Trademark Documents Filed (June 10, 2026)
• FW: New Mexico Preliminary Judgement Order  (June 18, 2026): Grok: “A federal judge in New Mexico has granted the Libertarian National Committee a preliminary injunction against the Libertarian Party of New Mexico and several of its leaders. In a June 17, 2026 order, U.S. District Judge Margaret Strickland ruled that the LPNM can no longer use the federally registered “LIBERTARIAN PARTY” trademark — including the name “Libertarian Party of New Mexico” — while the trademark infringement lawsuit is pending. The court found the LNC is likely to succeed on the merits, citing strong evidence of actual confusion among voters, donors, and members, plus the LPNM’s continued use of the mark after disaffiliating in 2022. The LPNM must rebrand and remove the name from its materials, while the LNC must post a $20,000 bond. Candidates may still run as independents or under other parties.”

This is great: https://t.co/SsLXFscWJO people are scamming trademark registration applicants. This is good: anyone seeing a state monopoly should be fleeced and punished as much as possible. Someone should do this to the evil, unprincipled, statist Libertarian Party…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) July 11, 2026

FW: New Mexico Preliminary Judgement Orderhttps://t.co/y2s9Ee3IDi
https://t.co/dPxEPsjFLZ
“Party of Principle”. Sad. Grok summary: “A federal judge in New Mexico has granted the Libertarian National Committee a preliminary injunction against the Libertarian Party of New Mexico…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) June 18, 2026

Note: LPNM Platform does not oppose IP.

LNC kicks out LPNH (May 2026)

• LPNH Notified of Its Disaffiliation
• Court documents in the LNC-LPNM litigation
• LP Judicial Committee Fills Its Ranks
• Court documents in the LNC-LPNM litigation

Libertarian Party Statement on the Disaffiliation of LPNH Posted on 05/27/2026 By TownUnderground

All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025

it’s especially funny that the LP is threatening a trademark lawsuit against LPNH… in violation of their own platform https://t.co/RqB0nsHnji pic.twitter.com/bxKGyqe9Dc

— Jeremy Kauffman 🦔🌲🌕 (@jeremykauffman) May 26, 2026

Ahem
This literally goes against stated libertarian policy that IP rights are not to be respected.
You’re literally betraying core LP ideals.https://t.co/dU3sEyMpAY

— Marxon (@Marxon1134x) May 27, 2026

There were a bunch of “purist” libertarians who went apeshit about the LP-RJK joint fundraising thing–claiming the LNC action violated the bylaws since it went against libertarian principles, which was a dubious argument (see decision below). However, the Platform clearly…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) May 27, 2026

In about a month’s time when the LNC is pursuing legal action on the basis of trademark law against @LPNH, I expect to receive apology letters from all of you.

— LiquidZulu, most consistent mofo you know (@liquid2ulu) May 27, 2026

As an addendum to this, I am imploring people to actually read LP National’s statement with respect to the disaffiliation of the LPNH.

What you will notice is that the disaffiliation is inextricably tied to the enforcement of LP National’s intellectual property claim over their…

— MonHop 👑 (@MonarchoHoppean) May 28, 2026

While the pursuit of absolute adherence to the non-aggression principle is of course fundamental to the libertarian movement, what is also necessary and foundational to our success is the ability to be wrong.

I disagreed with @liquid2ulu (aka @Not_LiquidZulu) for his take about… pic.twitter.com/m9fByctr6W

— MonHop 👑 (@MonarchoHoppean) May 28, 2026

FW: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review (May 28, 2026)

From: Richard Longstreth <richard.l…@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 6:10:58 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p…@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi…@lp.org>
Subject: Point of Privilege: Request to Pause Trademark Lawsuits pending Board Review

Dear Chair McMahon,

I am writing to you this afternoon to formally request that you, along with counsel, immediately pause any forward momentum, new filings, or escalations (subject to mandatory court-ordered deadlines) regarding all pending trademark lawsuits currently involving the Libertarian National Committee—specifically including, but not limited to, the ongoing litigation in New Mexico and Michigan.

To be clear, this communication is not a formal motion, nor is it intended to spark a protracted debate via email ballot. Instead, I am raising this as a matter analogous to a point of personal privilege—or more accurately, a point of privilege for the entire assembly.

As a newly elected body, many of our regional representatives, officers, and at-large members have inherited complex, high-stakes legal battles that we had absolutely no voice in initiating, voting upon, or strategizing. Because the LNC bears the ultimate financial and fiduciary responsibility for these actions, we are collectively exposed to the consequences of decisions made by a previous board.

It is a matter of basic fairness and institutional privilege that the newly elected members of this committee be allowed a reasonable window to review the case files, consult with counsel, and fully familiarize themselves with the underlying issues, risks, and expenditures before any further binding steps are taken. I do request time for Executive Session to review with counsel at our next meeting on June 6.

Taking a brief operational pause to allow for a comprehensive onboarding regarding our legal portfolio will ensure that any future actions taken by the LNC are unified, well-informed, and truly reflective of the current committee’s direction.  Many of us not on the previous LNC have not been personally invested in or attached to the conflicts but have heard from long time members about the harm they are doing to donors and local parties.

I request that you confirm receipt of this notice and advise the committee on the status of a temporary stay on these legal actions until a proper briefing can be conducted for the full board. I would like this body to ultimately decide whether we continue these lawsuits or not. Personally, I’d like to discuss other options involving the trademark, including a variety of resolution strategies.

Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Chair and I look forward to your prompt response.

Related

• LP Platform
• Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform
• Recent Trademark litigation emails from the LNC Public List

All IP is unjust, including trademark law. This is implied by sec. 2.1 of the Platform, which leaves no room for IP rights “Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 2, 2025

[continue reading…]