Intellectual Property Revisited / Why didn’t Joseph Smith copyright the 116 translated pages before giving to Martin Harris to show to family and friends? / Ron Paul Wins CPAC President Poll / Mike Huckabee Rips CPAC For Being Too Libertarian / Is Harry Reid Behind the New (Official) Nevada Tea Party? / Principled Response to the Possible Repeal of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” / Standing Armies Are A Danger To Our Liberty / Religious Freedom – Is It Everyone’s Right / Do Anti-Polygamy Laws Violate the Right to Worship God as One Best Sees Fit? / True Lovers of Liberty Defend the Rights of Others Even When You Don’t Agree With the Decisions They Make / Mitt Happens
Newsletter Subscribe
-
Current Book Spotlight
LDS Liberty Network Blogs
-
Most Popular All-Time Articles
- Illegal Immigration and the Fulfillment of Book of Mormon Prophecy - 27,834 views
- Why I Do Not Pledge Allegiance to the Flag - 23,672 views
- Liberty and Socialism Cannot Co-exist! - 12,667 views
- The Coming Apostasy of Latter-day Conservatives - 11,152 views
- Immigration, Individual Rights, and the Constitution - 6,884 views
-
Been listening to your show for a few weeks now, and I am intrigued by many of your views regarding personal liberty. However, when you talked about IP rights and IP law I found myself cringing. In today’s episode, you put forth one argument decrying the US patent system.
You said the patent system is unfair because if two identical inventions are independently created, the first to get to the patent office can preclude the second from using the invention. And the first doesn’t even have to prove that the second stole the invention.
We have a first to invent system. So it matters not who files a patent application first. There is no such thing as a race to the patent office in the US. What matters is who invented first. Currently, legislation is making it’s way through Congress that could change that, but it is the current state of the law.
I take it your argument is that the second inventor’s liberties are restricted because he now can’t practice his own invention without penalties. I understand this argument, and I don’t disagree. In the case of simultaneous, exactly similar inventions, one inventor loses if the other secures patent rights. However, do you consider the underlying policy reasons that the founders included the patent system in the constitution? The purpose to incentivize technological innovation. The patent system secures a very limited monopoly to an inventor in return for a public disclosure of exactly how the invention works. It is a quid-pro-quo system. Without the patent system, companies would not invest millions or billions into developing new technology because as soon as it came to fruition, others would duplicate it. The duplicators are not saddled with the immense R&D costs, so they could sell the product for much less than the developer. Zero incentive to develop. Without the patent system, we would live in a much different world with far fewer technological innovations. This is why every developing country in the world implements some sort of quid-pro-quo system that rewards technological innovation.
The single unfair situation that you describe a rarity. It simply does not happen often. Generally companies that secure patents on meaningful technology are able to avoid close patents of others, even if the others came first. The case of the lone inventor creating something worth the protection of a patent simply doesn’t happen often, and if it does, the harm caused by another lone inventor using the same innovation is so small that the first would be foolish to even attempt to enforce his patent rights. It would be a losing proposition from the start.
Another item. You conclude that God doesn’t approve of the Copyright system because he didn’t inspire Smith to copyright the stolen document. Really? That is like me saying that because my father didn’t tell me to join the Army, my father doesn’t approve of the Army.
God doesn’t approve of the entire idea of “protecting intellectual property” because it violates every individuals “right and control of property” (D&C 134:2). How so? Simple example: I own some paper and ink however I am forcefully denied the the right and control of this very property since I am not permitted to arrange my own ink on my own paper in certain ways (the same way an author of a book has). If I truly had a “right and control of [my] property” in the paper and ink I should be permitted to arrange the ink anyway I want to including arranging it exactly the same way an author of a book has (AKA making a copy of a copyrighted book).
Kevin, very true. IP is anti-natural rights and anti-property. All utilitarian considerations aside about incentivizing inventions, the fact is that IP violates real property rights. If you are pro-IP, you are anti-property. Plain and simple.
Question. Why, if people are allowed unlimited, unrestrained duplication of others’ works has the manual for the LDS church, Gospel Principles, ch. 31 on honesty does it say, “Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft”? To be clear, I am not at ALL a proponent of copyrights (as they are currently used or understood) or of patents. Both systems are rife with waste, bullying, and a general anti-competitive attitude. I have listened to many podcasts from this site and freely admit to feeling the Spirit very strongly when having listened to all of them so far, to also be clear. Huge fan!
How then, may a statement made by the Church authorities be aligned with a system precluding coercive force levelled against those who freely use elements of movies, music, etc.? May I suggest reading the chapter 19, “Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts” in Murray Rothbard’s ‘Ethics of Liberty’? In it, Prof. Rothbard describes property rights not as being one, inseparable whole but consisting of bundles, which can be almost infinitely divided, parceled, and sold or delegated to others.
Love the ‘casts, and keep up with the good work!
- Governmentasfiction@gmail.com
Even church leaders make mistakes. None of these statements you referred to made by Church authorities are claimed to be revelation or the will of the Lord and the certainly are not scripture. In other words they are opinions of man and since we do not believe any man is an infallible Pope there is nothing evil or wrong with seeking truth and dismissing error when any man speaks.
I have previously read the chapter you mentioned in Ethics and Liberty and think this was a misstep by Rothbard. A rebuttal of that chapter and the whole theory of “bundles of rights” can be found in Stephen Kinsella’s book “Against Intellectual Property”. The entire book is free (and legal) online here:
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
The section that refutes Rothbards theory of “bundles of rights” starts on page 47, near the bottom of the page titled “Contract vs. Reserved Rights”.
I hope this helps.
Just to add something real quick; do you know specifically how the content of the Gospel Principles books is produced? It’s literally just a bunch of members that get together and write it. Sure it’s approved by The Church but it’s content is changed and revised time and time again and it’s never raised to the level of scripture or doctrine. As with anything that isn’t scripture we need to be vigilant and careful in vetting out truth and rejecting errors.
In reference to the booing when Ron Paul was announced as winner of CPAC poll: I’ve never been to CPAC, but I believe that it is a big conference and they have lots of speakers and several different rooms and people go to hear the speakers they like. I heard that they happened to make the announcement of the poll winner right before a speech of someone (I forget who) that attracts a much different crowd than Ron Paul. So just as the CPAC poll isn’t a scientific cross section of conservatives or Republicans, the crowd present for the announcement wasn’t a good cross section of CPAC and the booing isn’t a good measure of conservative’s dislike for Ron Paul. Just because there was some booing doesn’t mean that all of the 60-70% of people that didn’t vote for Ron Paul really dislike him. Many of them may be favorable to Ron Paul but just didn’t want him as first pick. All it means is that there are at least some vocal people against Ron Paul.