You don't have to "doubt" that... it's certain that he hasn't.
Certain, eh? wow.
his principal objection to patents and IP rights is that they're state-imposed.
No it's not. You obviously have not read my arguments. That is jsut a backup argument, and afterthought.
Most of us, thankfully, recognize the utility of government
So do I, but government <> state.
In any case you do not need to be an anarchist to oppose IP. It's just an extra argument.
I'm not disputing that "ownership" and "property" exists. I'm disputing the "rights" to ownership and property.
Ownership is the legally recognized right to possess or use something. If there is no right, it collapses into mere possession, which means there is no ownership.
Mr. Kinsella's views are obviously purely academic. I'm betting he's never actually sat in a board room where real world decisions are made... motivations and thought processes which drive actual businessmen seem foreign to him.
You have yet to provide a single coherent argument or rebuttal to mine, or even to demonstrate that you understand what my argument is. You are really an amateur and out of your depth in this type of discussion. You are now resorting to ad hominem and reverse argument from authority, instead of simply providing a coherent and honest and sincere argument.
It is utterly irrelevant to the soundness of my argument whether I have sat in board meetings or not. but as a matter of fact, for the last 11 years I have been general counsel of a high tech company and of course have sat in and conducted scores of board meetings and run their entire patent strategy/portfolio. I am well aware of how patents work and affect companies. Small high tech startups like mine are forced to spend millions of dollars acquiring patents (we just got 3 more in the last few weeks -- see top 3 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fapplied+and+an%2Foptoelectronics&d=PTXT
). This is defensive and meant to keep competitors from suing; it's such a waste. And of course a patent lawsuit from a competitor or a troll is a huge danger lying in wait from comapnies that hope to go public; people strategically wait until an IPO is filed to launch a patent suit, to have maximum leverage extorting funds from the victim (see cases discussed here, including mostly recently Yahoo parastically attacking Facebook with patents) - http://c4sif.org/2012/03/using-patents-to-thwart-competitors-ipos/
. And people I know who actualy know something about all this are cynical like I am, including fellow patent attorneys.
See the letter from a major law firm attorney http://mises.org/daily/4018
"Stephan, Your letter responding to Joe Hosteny's comments on Patent Trolls nicely states what I came to realize several years ago, namely, it is unclear that the U.S. Patent System, as currently implemented, necessarily benefits society as a whole. Certainly, it has benefited [Hosteny] and his [partners] and several of their prominent clients, and has put Marshall, Texas on the map; but you really have to wonder if the "tax" placed on industry by the System … is really worth it."
Everyone knows this is a messy rigged system. But some people have a vested interest, and they use part of their monopoly profits to grease the palms of Congress so the system is perpetuated.
You are the naif who defends this horribly corrupt system and repeats stupid propaganda like an oaf.