Not true, rich. Mere "protection" is not enough. The contradiction that the Hallings have never addressed is this: If you own your life and you own the product of your labor and ultimately of your mind, then any so-called "copycat" has the same Lockean right to their labor as the original inventor.

Again, see this TED Talk by Johanna Blakely http://www.ted.com/speakers/johanna_blak... The fashion industry has very weak protection but has THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (trillions of dollars versus mere billions) more market than those industries protected by strong intellectual property laws.

The Mises Today article agrees as we all do with the fundamental premise that intellectual property is to be identified and protected by law. The questions are about how that gets done. The present system is founded on medieval ideas about land which is rival and exclusive. If you see someone with good land, you cannot just make good land of your own - actually you can, an interesting point to be discussed later - but if you see Henry Ford motoring about Detroit in his automobile, you can make one of your own. Now there are two where once there were none. How is that taking away from Ford? He still has his car. In fact it is also true that MANY people made such machines, but only some profited in the market, which is a whole other aspect not addressed by mere claims of prior invention.

If Daniels had recreated Galt's motor, who would own the one that Daniels made?

Here are some of the errors in this book/article.

“The common law system got it right: because the essence of ownership is found in the capacity to control some resource in furtherance of one’s purposes, such a claim [of common law copyright] is lost once a product is released to the public. The situation is similar to that of a person owning oxygen that is contained in a tank, but loses a claim to any quantity that might be released — by a leaky valve — into the air. (pp. 25-26)”

This statement is factually and historically incorrect. Property rights at common law were founded on Locke’s idea that you own yourself (see Sir William Blackstone’s commentaries), so you own those things you create. If you took the argument above seriously, then anyone with the biggest stick can control resources for so long as he can hold it and claim that it furthers their purpose, which any despot can make to any resource. That is not common law and is not property rights.


The author argues that copyrights provide “Monopoly privileges.” The author is confusing a property right with a monopoly. You have the exclusive right to use and sell you car, does that mean you have a monopoly? Of course not. What the author appears to be confused about is that property rights can overlap. For instance, you own your house, but the utility company has easements on your land, someone else may own the mineral or water rights. When it comes to copyrights in a book say, the owner of the physical book has the right to sell and use the book, but does not have the right to reproduce the book.


“If copyrights, patents, or trademark protections are not recognized among free people — unless specifically contracted for between two parties — by what reasoning can the state create and enforce such interests upon persons have not agreed to be so bound? ... Among men and women of libertarian sentiments, one would expect to find a presumption of opposition to the idea that a monopolist of legal violence could create property interests that others would be bound in principle to respect. (p. 22)”

This argument clearly fails. American Indians did not understand the idea of property rights in land. For instance, here is a quote by an American Indian that illustrates my point.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

Nomadic people gather, they do not cultivate. As a result, a nomadic people cannot possibly understand why they cannot pick an apple from your orchard. Only with the agricultural revolution (and mining) did the concept of property in land make any sense.


“All of these early inventions and creations were accomplished, as far as is known, without a violence-backed monopoly to prevent others from copying them.” (pp. 35-36)”

This is an intellectually dishonest statement. All property rights are backed by violence. There was no utopian period in which thieves and robbers did not exist. But more importantly, the rate at which inventions were created before property rights in inventions (patents) were created were so slow that the average person lived on the edge of starvation. Only with the advent of property rights in inventions did the Industrial Revolution occur and real per capita income started to take off.

The book smears the property rights of inventors and authors as a monopoly. Here a numerous articles showing that patents are property rights.

Patents: Monopoly or Property Right a Testable Hypothesis http://hallingblog.com/patents-monopoly-...
If patents are a monopoly, as some suggest, then it should lead to certain outcomes. A close examination shows that none of the supposed monopoly effects result from granting patents.

Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property http://hallingblog.com/monopolyrent-seek....
This post explains the characteristics of a monopoly and a property right and poses three questions to show the difference. Patents fit all the characteristics of a property right and none of a monopoly. Note that professional license, such as a law license has some of the characteristics of a monopoly.

More on the Myth that Patents are Monopolies http://hallingblog.com/more-on-the-myth-....
This post contains a number of quotes from philosophers explaining that patents are not monopolies.

Property Rights, Possession and Objects http://hallingblog.com/property-rights-p...
This post explains the difference in the concepts of property rights, possession, and objects. Most economists and patent detractors confuse these concepts. The origin, definition, and legal basis of property right are explained.

The Myth That Patents are a Monopoly http://hallingblog.com/the-myth-that-pat...
This post compares the definition of a monopoly to the rights obtained with a patent. It shows that the rights obtained with a patent do not confer a monopoly.

Patents are Natural Rights http://hallingblog.com/patents-are-natur...
This post traces the ideas of Locke and William Blackstone to show patents and copyrights are natural rights.

db will weigh in on this, he was working on other stuff this morning. it is always annoying whenever the word monopoly is used with IP. It doesn't fit the definition. Just because you can't use the invention does not mean the inventor/owner has the right to make or sell his invention. example: Edison and Swan. In order for Edison to make and sell the incandescent lightbulb he had to get licensing rights from Swan because he was infringing Swan's patent. This happens all the time. After awhile, one begins to think that those mis-using the term "monopoly" do it on purpose to confuse people into seeing their side of the issue. The idea that limitless/infinite ideas can be compared to breathing air is ridiculous. There is infinite gold in the Universe. Even so, for us, it is scarce. All one has to do to know the importance of patents is to look to our own Constitution. The ONLY right enumerated in the 1st draft. Our country went from fledgling to the wealthiest country in the world in under 160 years. Rand recognized this fact as well. One must be able to own the product of their mind.

I have read that there is clear evidence that where intellectual rights are not protected that advancement slows. I like Mises but I just didn't follow their logic on this one.

I'm not sure I agree on this one either. From a Libertarian standpoint I understand the logic but from a Capitalist perspective I disagree. Allowing the inventor some time limited protections to profit from his idea encourages innovation. Still undecided on this issue though.