Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist - Page 8 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Decatur: "because it is a strong mark that Tylenol has protected over the years through trademark protection"

it's b/c of reputation. Whether that requires extant trademark law is a separate question. Even if it does, and even if this means TM law is justified, this does not justify patent and copyright law. I find most people arguing in favor of IP law are ignorant of the differences and use arguments for one to support another, and often confuse them.






Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1223 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Ahem, because it is a strong mark that Tylenol has protected over the years through trademark protection


Exactly, same goes for Band-aid. Once you've been in the market long enough your name and reputation can pull you along.

If I was to start a company up to get into the market against a Tylenol or Band-aid who has the reputation, I'd need an advantage which would be a patent on my product to keep them from stealing it and just saying "look at our new product it's the same as the new little company, but it's backed by our great name and reputation" also they would be able to sell it for cheaper because their cost would be down overall since they would have access to capital, resources, and reduced costs across the board.

It's funny how every time someone comes up with an argument it's easily brushed off with crap like saying my assumptions are implausible, my assumptions are shite that happens day to day and what bring about law suits. You wouldn't have a job (at least in the specific area of law) if my assumptions didn't already happen. The stuff you say is implausible assumptions are the kind of things that currently go on, so this would all go away in your utopia?

Theories are great when they are words on paper, but until they come out and are truly tested are just that, theories. Communism seemed like a great "theory" on paper, but until brought about you start finding out all the downfalls that it has.

You mention Pepsi and Coke, they are two completely different colas competing against one another, and their formulas are different. They are two different products competing in the same market. Not two companies where one created a product and that other copied their designs and brought the same exact product to market.

I bring ideas to the table and you deflect. What protects the small man trying to get in with his idea from a giant taking it and choking him out? You have yet to bring anything to the table to show how this glorious system will work in the real world.

I am involved with a small business and the big companies can easily choke you out when they direct their attention to you unless you can stay ahead of them. Protections such as patents and regulations help keep the playing field fair for those trying to get into the realm of the market.

What in your scenario stops the giants from swallowing up the small and/or up and coming businesses and creating monopolies?

It's easy to look at the defensive tactics you're taking with your company you're involved with and say how much they are bull crap, which is understandable. There is bull crap all over the business world when it comes to covering yourself. Coming out and saying how this theory would be great and amazing on paper, but just saying whenever someone comes with a question or scenario that it's implausible is just using a big word to deflect from the fact that you must prove doubts and disbelief wrong for your theory to be more than just a theory and to be realistic.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Scrow:

quote:


It's funny how every time someone comes up with an argument


Except you have no argument.

quote:


it's easily brushed off with crap like saying my assumptions are implausible, my assumptions are shite that happens day to day and what bring about law suits. You wouldn't have a job (at least in the specific area of law) if my assumptions didn't already happen.


See this is a good example. The actual job that is held in 2012 by one Stephan Kinsella is not relevant to whether or not patent and copyright are justified. And without Hitler and the holocaust, there would not be concentration camp guards. So what? And without tax law there would not be tax attorneys. Without cancer there would not be cancer doctors. Without the state's invasion of civil liberties there would be no ACLU. Without poverty there would be no United Way. So what??

quote:


The stuff you say is implausible assumptions are the kind of things that currently go on, so this would all go away in your utopia?

Theories are great when they are words on paper, but until they come out and are truly tested are just that, theories.


You show you don't understand what theory means, if you have this weird notion of its relationship to reality.
quote:


Communism seemed like a great "theory" on paper,


No it wasn't. What idiot LSU professor taught you this?
quote:


but until brought about you start finding out all the downfalls that it has.



YOu sound like you are straining to be a completely unprincipled pragmatist. Except when you want to formulate broad conclusions and principles. You are totally confused about the nature of science and philosophy.

quote:


I bring ideas to the table and you deflect.


You bring literally nothing to the table but amateur confusion and bravado. You should listen and learn instead of braying.

quote:


What protects the small man trying to get in with his idea from a giant taking it and choking him out? You have yet to bring anything to the table to show how this glorious system will work in the real world.


Is this what you think is the standard for legitimate law-what "works"? Really? What are you talking about?

quote:


I am involved with a small business


That and $2.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

quote:


It's easy to look at the defensive tactics you're taking with your company you're involved with and say how much they are bull crap, which is understandable.


Yes, except I formed my views in 1993 or so when I was at a law firm obtaining patents for numerous clients. And in any case this is just yet another amateur dishonest attempt to engage in ad hominem swipes instead of deal with the actual argument. Which I understand since you people are evidently utterly unprepared to engage in.
quote:


Coming out and saying how this theory would be great and amazing on paper, but just saying whenever someone comes with a question or scenario that it's implausible is just using a big word to deflect from the fact that you must prove doubts and disbelief wrong for your theory to be more than just a theory and to be realistic.



You don't know what you are talking about. I never say abolishing IP would make the world great and amazing. I simply explain why these laws, according to fairly accepted or incontrovertible standards of property rights and justice, are not justifiable. Neither you nor your amateur buddies have even attempted a serious rebuttal of my argument or a defense of IP law. You are just repeating slogans like brainwashed children mouthing the Pledge of Allegiance, raising your hands over your hearts at a stupid Lee Greenwood patriotic song during a nationalistic sporting event, letting your children be drafted into a stupid war for the good of god and country, and so on. IT's really sad you don't even realize how intellectually stunted you are.






Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

it's b/c of reputation.


A reputation that has been protected by the existing trademark legal regime

quote:

Whether that requires extant trademark law is a separate question. Even if it does, and even if this means TM law is justified, this does not justify patent and copyright law.


But if you do believe that trademark law is justified, then you've just agreed to recognize "intangible" property rights, which you've already declared to be illegitimate. If you recognize the justification of trademark law then you open the door to recognizing the intangible property rights protected by patent and copyright law.







Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Decatur:

quote:

A reputation that has been protected by the existing trademark legal regime

so?
quote:

But if you do believe that trademark law is justified


But I do not. Can you not read? Or are you going to further besmirch the LSU reputation?

quote:

, then you've just agreed to recognize "intangible" property rights, which you've already declared to be illegitimate.


For the umpteenth time: I have explained repeatedly why patent and copyright are illegitimate and this is so regardless of the status of trademark or trade secret.

quote:

If you recognize the justification of trademark law


All I recognized is that fraud is a type of crime. But patent and copyright are not based on fraud. Are you completely stupid? Can you not even understand your opponent's view?






Back to top
ForeLSU
LSU Fan
The Corner of Sanity and Madness
Member since Sep 2003
33079 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

nskinsella

hope you stick around...I'm going on vacation and probably won't read through your stuff until next week. I'm not really black/white on this issue, but am certainly interested philosophically as a software developer. I've never bothered with any type of formal, legal protection because I believe execution of the business model is much more important than protection as far as success is concerned. However, I do believe that intellectual property is just as sacred as tangible property as far as my personal "code of ethics" is concerned.

And I apologize for thinking your user name was some sort of slang for a pimp that deals in black chicks..."n skin seller"...






Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

But I do not.


Maybe I should have spoke in general: If one believes that trademark law is justified

quote:

I have explained repeatedly why patent and copyright are illegitimate and this is so regardless of the status of trademark or trade secret.


So you think they are both illegitimate (I mean patent/copyright v. trademark) but not for the same reasons?

I think I might have to read one of your works






Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Or are you going to further besmirch the LSU reputation?


quote:

Are you completely stupid?


Flattery won't get you anywhere with me ;)







Back to top
Gmorgan4982
LSU Fan
Member since May 2005
96474 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

I think I might have to read one of your works
LINK






Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Thanks G-man





Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1223 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

See this is a good example. The actual job that is held in 2012 by one Stephan Kinsella is not relevant to whether or not patent and copyright are justified. And without Hitler and the holocaust, there would not be concentration camp guards. So what? And without tax law there would not be tax attorneys. Without cancer there would not be cancer doctors. Without the state's invasion of civil liberties there would be no ACLU. Without poverty there would be no United Way. So what??


Fling insults and then completely miss the point on something, nice job. I was stating this saying that this is how the world works currently and how would your theory change this? The "theory" you speak of is nothing more than that theory. The Big Bang Theory is in the same realm as yours, just words and talk with no proof, yet brings up some valid points and interest, but no proof of happening and in your case working.

quote:

You show you don't understand what theory means, if you have this weird notion of its relationship to reality.


No, it's me questioning how this theory of yours is anything more than just a bunch of people getting together coming up with something that they think would work and then meeting those who bring about real world scenarios only to deflect and fling insults.

quote:

No it wasn't. What idiot LSU professor taught you this?


Apparently you missed my sarcasm, I'll take the blame on that being this is the internet, the quotations were meant for sarcasm on theory.

quote:

YOu sound like you are straining to be a completely unprincipled pragmatist. Except when you want to formulate broad conclusions and principles. You are totally confused about the nature of science and philosophy.


So we're supposed to just think this to working without actual experimenting got ya...

quote:

That and $2.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.


Don't drink Starbucks, so I'll take your word on it, sounds like you're area of expertiece.

quote:

Yes, except I formed my views in 1993 or so when I was at a law firm obtaining patents for numerous clients. And in any case this is just yet another amateur dishonest attempt to engage in ad hominem swipes instead of deal with the actual argument. Which I understand since you people are evidently utterly unprepared to engage in.


I understand you have your views, well I am asking questions about them based on real world scenarios. I agree there is a bunch of red tape that doesn't need to exsist, but how is just removing it all going to fix things whenever you can't answer what I'm asking? I guess this is where philosophy protects it again because we need not worry about how it's going to fix things just why it's not justified.

quote:

You don't know what you are talking about. I never say abolishing IP would make the world great and amazing.


No, you only brought about a theory on why they aren't needed based on your logic, definitions and so on.

quote:

Neither you nor your amateur buddies have even attempted a serious rebuttal of my argument or a defense of IP law.


Everytime I've said something bringing up a scenario you hide behind the fact that this is philosophy. So I guess until I quit analyzing it as a science and use word logic so to speak to question your theory then we're speaking apples and oranges. The scenarios can be deflected by saying, "I'm being philosophical not scientific" since you don't want to experiment.

You know what else sounds cool? Everyone getting free health care, that sounds fantastic until you rob peter to pay paul to get it. The philosophy behind what you're saying may be true, but the real world application of it has no clout. So, cool thought, let me know whenever it can be applied and you've worked the kinks out of it.

quote:

You are just repeating slogans like brainwashed children mouthing the Pledge of Allegiance, raising your hands over your hearts at a stupid Lee Greenwood patriotic song during a nationalistic sporting event, letting your children be drafted into a stupid war for the good of god and country, and so on. IT's really sad you don't even realize how intellectually stunted you are.


Not repeating a slogan, repeating a scenario, just questioning your logic by bringing up a simple scenario that occurs in the business world. Theft happens all the time in the realm of business, it's cut throat and people will cheat and steal to get ahead. Currently involved in a situation where one company stole property of another through an employee defecting. Was personally asked by an employeer before if I could bring anything that could help them. I was asked this while changing employment between competitors and the exact verbage was, "Is there anything you can sneak away on a jump drive that could help make things easier for us?" Yet again though, you're keeping your theory in the realm of thought where I am questioning it in reality.

Also, when you resort to flinging insults, kind of takes away from your argument.



This post was edited on 3/21 at 8:17 am


Back to top
joshnorris14
Florida Fan
Florida
Member since Jan 2009
20605 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

just words and talk with no proof, yet brings up some valid points and interest, but no proof of happening and in your case working.


You're arguing with an Austrian from the premise of empiricism and you think you have a solid argument.






Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1223 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

You're arguing with an Austrian from the premise of empiricism and you think you have a solid argument.


I admitted we were talking apples and oranges, and the fact that I was being scientific looking for validation. I wasn't arguing, just questioning how it would work with the scenario. Given an answer I may be more interested in the complete ins and outs. The philosophy of it doesn't really interest me if the application cannot be validated in such a simple real world scenario.






Back to top
WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
13850 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

For the umpteenth time: I have explained repeatedly why patent and copyright are illegitimate and this is so regardless of the status of trademark or trade secret.

This has been a fascinating thread. I entered into it with the preconceived notion that patent, copyright and trademark are necessary for fair trade, but now I'm realizing this is all just based on received language.

I do have a question, but don't think that I am attempting to invalidate your argument with it...

You mentioned earlier in the thread that you are also against trademark for reasons similar to patent. My question to you is what would stop a manufacturer from simply making a cheaper aspirin and branding it as Bayer? Without trademark, can there be fraud in this case?

Don't let the politards get you down, while they are full of enthusiasm, they often lack the ability to conduct a reasonable argument.

And don't fall into the ad hominem pool. I do it myself out of frustration, but it only diverts attention away from your argument and is like manna to the trolls.






Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

You mentioned earlier in the thread that you are also against trademark for reasons similar to patent. My question to you is what would stop a manufacturer from simply making a cheaper aspirin and branding it as Bayer? Without trademark, can there be fraud in this case?


Great question! I'm interested in hearing the answer to this too!







Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


Scrowe: I cannot respond to all of your ignorant screed. You need to step back and think about this, and find a way to ask honest and sincere questions, and to search for truth and knowledge. You need to try to open your mind to where in your preconceived notions you are relying on assumptions that you have not and cannot justify. There are so many confusions and errors riddled in with your penultimate post that I cannot begin to correct it. It would take 10 pages. You are wrong about the nature of proof, validity, theory, and knowledge. You have been infected with scientism and empiricism and utilitarianism--all of which are unscientific. If you want to learn more read Mises's Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (free at mises.org) and Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method (hanshoppe.com) and maybe Rothbard's Mantle of Science (at mises.org). Some of my posts too about scientism and CP Snow and whatever, all at stephankinsella.com/publications

One comment of yours I'll address: "You know what else sounds cool? Everyone getting free health care, that sounds fantastic until you rob peter to pay paul to get it. "

Yes, I am against socialism in all its forms. The problem is you are not. You see that socialized medicine is wrong, but then you see nothing wrong with that same criminal, socialist state taking my property rights and granting it to an inventor for some higher social purpose. In form and function the patent idea is no different than socialized medicine or taxes. They are all anti-property socialistic wealth transfers. Think about it.






Back to top
nskinsella
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Mar 2012
38 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


WildTchoupitoulas:
quote:

This has been a fascinating thread. I entered into it with the preconceived notion that patent, copyright and trademark are necessary for fair trade, but now I'm realizing this is all just based on received language.


IP is not an easy issue. We have all been taught that patent and copyright are just parts of the western, capitalist, property rights system. It's in the constitution. It's now embedded in industry and the economy and our culture. So we are used to it. It's hard to open your eyes and start to see this issue clearly. It takes honesty and integrity and sincerity, and a bit of intelligence. So kudos to you. I've seen this happen many times--an honest person's eyes are opened on this topic. Lots of people have converted to the anti-IP view in the last decade or so. Now it is common for libertarians to dismiss IP. Now they get it.

quote:

I do have a question, but don't think that I am attempting to invalidate your argument with it...


Honest questions are fine.

quote:

You mentioned earlier in the thread that you are also against trademark for reasons similar to patent.


Well I explian in AIP and various blog posts why I am against it.It is the state and pro-IP people who lump together patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and other special laws like boat hull designs, semiconductor maskwork protection, database rights, moral rights, and so on, under a unified classification that they call IP. They do this in part b/c for legal analysis these laws have some similar features and bases, but mostly they do it for propaganda: to use the word "property" to justify these special laws that actually are derogations from property. It is a propaganda technique.

I agree that these laws share some features, but they are not the same. Tehy are all illegitimate but some for different reasons. Patent and copyright differ, but they both grant the holder of the fake right, the legal veto right over how others use their property (a negative servitude). That is why they are illegitimate: because third parties in a free society would not have the right to stop me from using my property as I see fit so long as I am not trespassing on their own property borders. Trademark is also illegitimate if and to the extent it prohibits acts that are not fraudulent. But to the extent the acts prohibited amount to consumer fraud, then trademark is unnecessary since normal fraud law would apply.

quote:

My question to you is what would stop a manufacturer from simply making a cheaper aspirin and branding it as Bayer? Without trademark, can there be fraud in this case?


Yes it is fraud even without trademark since you are representing to the consumer something about the nature of the goods you are selling him, to obtain title to his money; this is fraudulent. But notice that this can never be done on a widespread scale b/c most new comapnies that are legitimate want to use their own names, and if they did this regularly they would be sued by their customers, and lose moeny, and alos have a horrible reputation. Thati s why Pepsi sells under its name, not Coke. Wendy's hamburgers uses Wendy's name, not McDonald's. Burger King and Dairy Queen etc. all have their own names. Iti sn ot b/c they are required to, but b/c this is how business works. Does everyone name their son John? Does everyone buy a red car? No.

On this see my 4 blog posts: The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld; Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach; The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression; Trademark and Fraud -- all linked at http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications

So the generic maker who wants to make sales has to establish a reputation. If they are selling under "Bayer" they will soon be sued. And consider: you go to Kroger grocery store and see Crest toothpaste or Bayer aspirin. If it turns out they are bogus, Kroger will lose customers. So Kroger will buy from reputable vendors who have genuine goods. In this way knockoffs and defrauders will always be marginal.

I discuss some of this in regard to the LachmannBurger/Rothbard-burger issue in http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_2/18_2_3.pdf






Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

So the generic maker who wants to make sales has to establish a reputation. If they are selling under "Bayer" they will soon be sued.


Sued under trademark law. Again, it's hard for you to escape this.






Back to top
WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
13850 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

If they are selling under "Bayer" they will soon be sued

On what grounds, though?

How can it be considered misrepresentation if their is no standard for representation?

I may decide that it is most profitable for my new company to simply make knock off products and brand them as existing top-selling products.

Should I be sued for fraud, couldn't my defense simply be that I like the word "Bayer" and the mark I use on the label simply looks good and inspires a sense of trust in my customers?

If this is profitable for my business, it should be profitable for others' as well. At this point the retailer would not develop a bad reputation because his shelves are full of products that the consumer can't tell one from another.

Your Pepsi, Coke, Wendy's examples seem invalid because they sell their products in the current environment of trademark law. Sans trademark, I could see Coke coming out with a product made from the sex organs of a sea urchin and label it "Pepsi" in order to sabotage their competitors product.

I am no lawyer, and I suspect that there would be other laws aside from trademark that a producer could sue under. I'm thinking of authorship. It would seem fraudulent for me to publish under another, more respected, author's name without that author having to trademark their name.

Just going over all this in my head...






Back to top
Decatur
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17273 posts

re: Stephan Kinsella: Logic of Libertarianism and Why IP Doesn't Exist


quote:

Thati s why Pepsi sells under its name, not Coke. Wendy's hamburgers uses Wendy's name, not McDonald's.


What happens when another company uses someone else's mark to sell their own goods?



Why can't I just buy a bunch of sneakers, slap Nike's swoosh on them (the only identifying mark on the shoe) and then sell them as Decatur shoes?






Back to top



Back to top