From the NYPost. Notice that most people try to defend trademark on the grounds that the poor customer is being defrauded. Now they want to jail customers. Clearly they are not defrauded. And the councilwoman behind this even tries to blame knock-off manufacturers for terrorism and child exploitation. Amazing.

Bill would bag phony-purse buyers

By JOHN DOYLE

Last Updated: 11:05 AM, April 26, 2011

Posted: 12:46 AM, April 26, 2011

Pretty soon, it could be more than just the fashion police who have a problem with your shoddy knockoff bag, like this bogus Louis Vuitton.

Read more>>

Jock Coats, who did the audiobook version of my Against Intellectual Property (and who attended my IP course at Mises Academy) has written a great post on the Adam Smith blog, in “honor” of “World Intellectual Property Day”.

Intellectual property: an unnecessary evil
Written by Jock Coats
Tuesday, 26 April 2011 16:49

Intellectual property rights – better thought of as intellectual monopoly rights – are an unnecessary evil. They are unnecessary because all their stated, utilitarian aims can be achieved by other means. They are an evil because granting artificial rights to non-property restricts everyone else’s property rights. They are more likely to be used to stifle the creativity, innovation, and emulation that underpins technological and cultural advance; and they concentrate wealth and power in the hands of privileged non-creators more interested in milking selected others’ efforts.

Dignifying them with the phrase “intellectual property” is a contemporary conceit to conceal crude market interference through state granted privilege with the flimsiest gossamer of respectability. The primary origins of patents lie in maintaining the state’s coffers, and of copyright in state censorship of ideas.

Property rights arise from a desire to prevent conflict over scare resources. Ideas, patterns, recipes and processes are non-scarce. Intellectual monopoly laws impose different time periods and restrictions. From time to time legislators arbitrarily decide to protect previously unprotected categories of invention. Even legislators then don’t regard them as genuine property, ownable in perpetuity by the first owner and their heirs until they chose to dispose of it.

However, many claim that, without intellectual monopoly, those with innovative and creative minds would not use those faculties, insufficiently rewarded for their creativity. This is by no means self-evident. If…

• Dickens could make money from Americans without copyright
• Musicians could feed themselves before Edison
• Plant breeding could bloom before the US Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970
• Software got written before the 1981 SCOTUS decision in Diamond vs Diehr
• Most of the 2009 Billboard Top 40 music earners made most of their income from live performances, not recordings
• Harry Potter novels sold enough in their first twenty-four hours to keep J K Rowling in style

…why do we think they need state protection now? The plain truth is that because of the grip of the small number of media giants who control the production, marketing and distribution of their favoured artists, many more undiscovered artists subsist on live gigs in local venues. And because of the modish patent trolls who have no intention of ever exploiting their patents, many innovators never even know someone else “owns” an idea until the writ arrives end up broken.

19th century libertarians ranked Intellectual Monopoly as state created privilege that impoverishes the majority. We should heed them: they are still destructive, unnecessary, statist and evil.

Further reading:

Stephan Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property” at the Mises Institute (and an audiobook version of it by me)

Stephan’s thinktank, the “Centre for the Study of Innovative Freedom” (C4SIF)

“Against Intellectual Monopoly” by Michele Boldrin and David Levine and the supporting website “Against Monopoly: Defending the Right to Innovate”

…and if you are minded to do a bit more study on Intellectual Property from a libertarian perspective, though Stephan Kinsella’s Mises Academy course “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory and Economics” is coming to the end of its current run, you might keep an eye out for it running again.

April 26th is “World Intellectual Property Day”. Jock Coats blogs at OxFr33.

This comment by nate-m on the Mises blog thread Mossoff: Why Should Business Leaders Care About Intellectual Property (Objectivism) is worth reposting in its entirety:

Happy World Book and Copyright Day! No, I’m not kidding: “World Book and Copyright Day (also known as International Day of the Book or World Book Days) is a yearly event on 23 April, organized by UNESCO to promote reading, publishing and copyright. The Day was first celebrated in 1995.”

From 2010:

From May 2010:

From Mises blog Jan. 2010. Archived comments below.

Over the years I’ve been accused of being a hypocrite for practicing patent law while opposing its legitimacy, or similar charges–such as the charge that I must not or cannot be a very good patent attorney if I don’t believe in the system, or why do I “copyright” my own books if I don’t believe in copyright. Below is a collection of posts addressing these and related arguments.

Related links:

• Letter to an Anonymous Patent Attorney  (Jan 25, 2002)
• Update: Related posts: The Most Libertarian Patent Work; Advice for Prospective Libertarian Law Students; Are anti-IP patent attorneys hypocrites?; An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd!; The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents
• “A Patent Success Story” (June 26, 2006)
• Patent Lawyers Who Oppose Patent Law
• Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys
• Miracle–An Honest Patent Attorney! (Sep. 7, 2006)
• A collection of recent blogs about patent hypocrisy and “success” stories  (Nov. 8, 2006)
• Patent Attorney Admission (Dec. 22, 2006)
• The Most Libertarian Patent Work  (July 14, 2009)
• Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished!  (Sep. 29, 2009)
• The “Productivity” of Patent Brainstorming (Jan. 4, 2012)
• “Oh yeah? How would like it if I copy and publish your book under my name?!”: On IP Hypocrisy and Calling the Smartasses’ Bluffs,  Jan 3, 2013

***

From the St. Petersburg Times (h/t Wendy McElroy):

Da-da-da-da-da-da … CHARGE, says composer

By Kathleen McGrory, Miami Herald
In Print: Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Da-da-da-da-da-da! Charge!

If you attend sporting events, you are probably familiar with that ditty, a standard at ballparks, basketball arenas and hockey rinks across the country. They play it and play it and play it until your eardrums bleed.

What you might not know is that a Pompano Beach man says he composed it — and says he is entitled to compensation every time it airs publicly.

Bobby Kent, 62, holds a copyright for the song, a 26-measure piece he dubbed Stadium Doodads in the late 1970s. The last part of the song is the popular rally cry.

Kent is suing the company that once licensed the song to sporting venues, saying for the past two decades, he has been paid a fraction of what he deserves. Kent is also planning to sue every pro sports team in the United States — except the Los Angeles Lakers. He says he mailed a letter last year to every franchise, demanding money in exchange for using the song. The Lakers were the only ones who capitulated, paying him $3,000.

“I’m looking to get what I’m owed,” Kent said.

Read more>>

The latest issue of Theoretical Inquiries in Law has several interesting pieces on the theme “Copyright Culture, Copyright History,” including:

Copyrights as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?

Diane Leenheer Zimmerman

Abstract

The most widely accepted explanation of why we need copyright is that it provides authors with the necessary economic incentive to create. This incentive story has largely gone unchallenged, and has been used to justify lengthening and strengthening the legal protections for expressive works. This Article points out, however, that the empirical foundation for the copyright-as-incentive story is seriously suspect. It fails to account for the economic conditions under which most art, literature and other expressive works are produced, and it contravenes the insights provided over the last forty years or so by psychologists interested in creativity and by behavioral economists. Empirical research has shown that intrinsic factors are much more important determinants of participation in creative work than such extrinsic ones as monetary reward. In fact, evidence exists that the promise of extrinsic rewards such as money can actually be detrimental to the creative impulse. This is not to say that concern with economic rewards should play no role in a legal regime designed to encourage the creative process. But, at a minimum, this Article suggests both that copyright scholars (and possibly patent ones as well) need to develop a far more nuanced understanding of why people produce what they do, and that a satisfactory legal regime to promote intellectual property creation and dissemination can afford to be far less concerned than it presently is with ensuring that authors and copyright owners can extract every bit of available profit from their works.

Recommended Citation

Zimmerman, Diane Leenheer (2011) “Copyrights as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law: Vol. 12 : No. 1, Article 3.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/til/default/vol12/iss1/art3

and

Bollywood/Hollywood

Madhavi Sunder

Abstract

Free flow of culture is not always fair flow of culture. A recent spate of copyright suits by Hollywood against Bollywood accuses the latter of ruthlessly copying movie themes and scenes from America. But claims of cultural appropriation go far back, and travel in multiple directions. The revered American director, Steven Spielberg, has been accused of copying the idea for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial from legendary Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray’s 1962 script, The Alien. Disney’s The Lion King bears striking similarities to Osamu Tezuka’s Japanese anime series, Kimba the White Lion. Neither Ray nor Tezuka’s studio sued the American filmmakers and this Article is by no means an attempt to revive any particular legal case. Rather, this Article considers copyright’s role in promoting free cultural exchange, albeit on fair terms in a global marketplace of ideas marked by sharp differentials in power, wealth, and knowledge.

Recommended Citation

Sunder, Madhavi (2011) “Bollywood/Hollywood,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law: Vol. 12 : No. 1, Article 10.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/til/default/vol12/iss1/art10

The full contents of this issue is:

Copyright Culture, Copyright History

Introduction

Copyright and Truth

Maurizio Borghi

Copyrights as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?

Diane Leenheer Zimmerman

Copyright as Tort

Avihay Dorfman and Assaf Jacob

What Is a Copyright Work?

Brad Sherman

Copyright and Social Movements in Late Nineteenth-Century America

Steven Wilf

The “Extraordinary Multiplicity” of Intellectual Property Laws in the British Colonies in the Nineteenth Century

Lionel Bently

Hebrew Authors and English Copyright Law in Mandate Palestine

Michael D. Birnhack

Is Copyright Property? — The Debate in Jewish Law

Neil W. Netanel and David Nimmer

Bollywood/Hollywood

Madhavi Sunder

Tailoring Copyright to Social Production

Niva Elkin-Koren

Global Intellectual Property Governance (Under Construction)

Margaret Chon

An Old-Fashioned View of the Nature of Law

James Boyd White

From the Mises blog; archived comments below.

Update: See Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property and this facebook post: 

“Protection from entrepreneurial competition does not provide any spur to entrepreneurial discovery.”

– Israel Kirzner 👀

— Foundation for Economic Education (@feeonline) August 14, 2025

“Protection from entrepreneurial competition does not provide any spur to entrepreneurial discovery.” Kirzner, Discovery and the Capitalist Process (1985), p. 38

***

I’ve noted before the views of Austrians such as Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard on IP.¹ They would be placed in phase 3 of The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism.

In my post Mossoff: Why Should Business Leaders Care About Intellectual Property (Objectivism), I noted Sheldon Richman had relayed to me an interesting exchange between Roy Cordato and the pro-IP Adam Mossoff:

Mossoff recently appeared on an IP panel at the recent APEE annual meeting, along with several anti-IP libertarians, including Sheldon Richman (I believe Roderick Long was present too but I am not sure if he was on that panel). The panel also had Ed Lopez who offered efficiency arguments against IP but was not much part of the debate. Richman related to me that at one point, Roy Cordato asked Mossoff if IP would protect a Kirznerian entrepreneur who has a novel insight about the gap between the cost of inputs and the price of an output. At first Mossoff said he didn’t know what a Kirznerian entrepreneur was (Cordato explained), then he didn’t get the point (thinking Cordato meant the actual product rather than the idea about the gap between costs and price), then ended up saying that the idea would be patentable–which means the law would stop market equilibration, since others could not jump in and imitate the entrepreneur.

This got me curious about Cordato. Sure enough, in his 1992 book Welfare Economics and Externalities in an Open Ended Universe, he has several passages indicating a skepticism of IP. On pp. 21-22, he discusses the difference between Mises and Rothbard on patent and copyright; see also p. 36 (“If an external benefit “problem” arises that is the result of ambiguously defined entitlements, then some form of public policy which focuses on establishing those rights may be advocated. The sole example of this in the literature is Mises’ discussion patent and copyright laws”). On p. 80:

Mises has suggested, though, that an external benefit “problem” might arise where intellectual property rights are not clearly defined; this is the issue of patents and copyrights (see chapter 1). Mises clearly focuses on an issue of property rights that may have normative implications for catallactic efficiency. Ambiguities with respect to entitlements in the area of inventions and the generation of ideas can lead to interpersonal conflicts in the plan-formulation and goal-seeking process. As noted, to efficiently make plans, individuals need to know that their rights to use the relevant property will be upheld at pertinent points in the future. The issue of patents and copyrights may be an application of this principle.

On the other hand, this is clearly an area where the limitations of economic analysis are exposed and a theory of justice may need to be invoked. Consistent with O’Driscoll and Rizzo’s point, this is a case where certain ethical questions need to be resolved before economic analysis can be applied. The question of whether property rights can legitimately be applied to ideas, particularly given that ideas and inventions can be and often are independently discovered, has both practical and ethical implications. In such cases, the granting of property rights to a discovery itself denies the rights of others who have made or will make the same discovery independently (Rothbard 1970, p. 71). This denial of rights would clearly interfere with plans that were made by the independent discoverer and may consequently have a negative impact on the accuracy of some market prices. This suggests that the granting of property rights to ideas would likely lead to its own problems with respect to catallactic efficiency.6 Mises’s brief analysis, providing neither a theory of justice nor efficiency, does not give us a satisfactory approach to this issue. [continue reading…]

1. On Hayek: see Tucker, “Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation“; Tucker, “Hayek on Patents and Copyrights” (archived comments). On Mises, see Human Action 3rd rev. ed. Chicago: Henry Regnery (1966), chap. 23, section 6, pp. 661–62; see also pp. 128, 364; see also Kinsella, “Mises on Intellectual Property“. Rothbard: Knowledge, True and False and Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Scholars Edition, pp. liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86. [↩]

I noted in Supreme Court Prepares to Chop Down “Clear and Convincing” Standard for Proving Patent Invalidity that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the appeal of the Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd., case. In this case, i4i sued Microsoft for patent infringement and was awarded a $290M judgment, based on Microsoft’s use of XML in Word.

At issue here is the burden of proof Microsoft needs to satisfy to prove i4i’s patents invalid. As I previously explained, my hope is that Microsoft wins–they have argued to lower the standard of proof needed to invalidate a patent. This would be a minor change, but in the right direction. The Court heard oral arguments in this case earlier this week; they are summarized here. It’s hard to be sure what the Court will do but my impression is they will probably side, at least partially, with Microsoft.

From Reuters: Apple sues Samsung over Galaxy products: for “copying” the iOS devices.

Disgusting and horrible. This is the use of the state to stop competition.

Update:  Samsung strikes back at Apple with ten patent infringement claims

–a good example of why companies are forced to acquire an arsenal of patents for defensive purposes.

See also Apple: Patent Crybaby