[763] in libertarians
Re: Intellectual property
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (deanjens@midway.uchicago.edu)
Sat Feb 25 11:27:58 1995
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 11:26:50 -0500
From: deanjens@midway.uchicago.edu
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
> Which is the standard reason-based argument for all property rights; if there
> are no property rights, there is no incentive to create property.
I thought the basic argument used for property was natural
rights, not incentive for creation. Who determines what is worthy of
"incentive"?
>> Why does an investment in development translate into a
>>guarantee of utility? And a monopoly at that. You're making a SOCIAL
> I'm not sure I understand the statement (first sentence), but my first
I'll repeat it a little differently: Why should the government
point its guns at other people because someone has invested money in a
process? What sort of property basis can there be for declaring that
someone who has no contractual obligation to this "owner" (indeed, may
have never seen or heard of them) must not sell the products of their
effort if there is similarity, without making terms acceptable to this
person, who threatens them with force otherwise?
> response is that it doesn't; once again, the entrepreneur is only rewarded
> for taking chances that do create utility. If we negate property rights (of
Why does taking a chance merit government monopoly? This is a
crucial point - any government distortion of the free market in favor of
certain businesses can be labeled "something-property". Take Federal
Express, for example - they invented the overnight-delivery market. So,
having gone through the research and advertising to create this service,
having taken that risk, shouldn't their "customer-property" be protected
by giving them a service-patent for 17 years on overnight delivery? How
can we expect there to be an incentive to create new services otherwise?
Someone could just jump into the market and get a free ride from all the
advertising and groundbreaking done by the pioneer.
>>argument, that the greater good is best served by a grant of monopoly
>>from the government (and I thought Libertarians didn't like those ...)
>Here you seem to be dismissing the use of reason as inferior to the use of
>moral arguments (i.e. it is wrong to steal), unless I have completely missed
>the point, which is possible. The fabulous thing about libertarianism is that
I'm posing a question: Is Libertarianism based on what's good
for personal freedom, with the argument that this produces good
business, or is it based on what's good for business, with the
assumption that that is good for personal freedom (i.e. "What's good for
General Motors is good for liberty")? I think software patents are a
good way to differentiate the two cases: They represent an *extreme*
form of government intervention, a monopoly about as abstract as
possible. Independent invention is no defense. Before you can produce
any product, you should technically clear everything with the government
to make sure no part of the rights of that creation have been assigned
by it to someone else. This strike me as profoundly anti-Libertarian.
Yet it's a windfall to the owner of those rights, and is hence has been
defended as right and proper - "property".
> I presume that you believe, Seth, in property rights of some kind beyond
Yes, but I don't believe anything you name as property thus
becomes property - at least, that is not property as I understand it.
Physical objects are easy. But there has to be a line somewhere, and
what is the basis for drawing it (I assume you don't support
"customer-property" in my example above)? If the basis is "what is best
for business", well, that's not a freedom philosophy, it's a plutocratic one.
> patents; I do not believe that patents inherently lend themselves to
> overgeneralization, or that there is any inherent problem with patents.
I have a very hard time with any natural-rights or intrinsic
basis for the ownership of an idea. I especially have difficulty with a
government monopoly on one. Overgeneral patents are simply an egregious
example, an attempt to get the monopoly to go as far as possible.
So what is your opinion of the Zimmerman-PGP patent issues? Note
I severely doubt the patents involved could be overturned as obvious
(though they may be overbroad in claims) - the very basis for for their
existence, however, is much shakier (both as a matter of law and
philosophy).
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
