The intellectual confusion of facts with assertions is shown by this. " An example of lawful possession of something you do not own is when a car mechanic is servicing your car. He does not own the car, but he is in possession of the car." - dbhalling. In fact the Carrier's Case is the perfect counter-example. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier'...). Until 1473 when the king's "Star Chamber" ruled apart from the common law courts and also apart from the "lawe marchant" (law of the merchants), it was assumed that when you delivered something, the receiver held title to it IN YOUR INTEREST. If you gave your Volvo to a mechanic who sold it for a million dollars, kept 10% and gave the rest to you, how could you complain? In the Carrier's Case, if the carter had been faced with selling wool at the destination for 100 pounds, but could have sold it elsewhere for 125, should he not have done so for the benefit of the tenderer?

dbhalling writes as if this is from Moses and the Burning Bush, but, really, these laws are only a few hundred years old and peculiar to England. How did commerce exist in the days of Hamurabi or Solon or Caesar or Charlemagne if no one had figured out the difference between possession and ownership?

Moreover, dbhalling's claim that in taking possession of all the land you can see, you have "mixed your labor" with it is illogical.When the Europeans landed in America, they claimed "this land" for the king of wherever. By dbhalling's logic, they did indeed own everything except those places where a Native happened to be standing... or maybe at most a Native village happened to be. Does the first astronaut on Mars get the whole thing? Thank goodness that Neal Armstrong claimed the Moon for all mankind.... (dbhalling, of course, would object, and perhaps rightfully so, but this needs deep thinking and halling is invested in the present and current US law: it is his bread and butter, literally, so of course, like any lawyer with a client, he speaks eloquently on his own behalf.)

I agree that I do not have "an" answer. Thinking this through from facts and logic needs work. I do acknowledge that by whatever legal legerdemain, the copyrights on the works of Arthur Conan Doyle seem secured. So, the revenue from them pays for an office at 221B Baker Street London. If you write to Sherlock Holmes there, you get a reply that he is busy and not accepting new clients. That's pretty cool...

Yet, my wife and daughter and I all read _A Tale of Two Cities_ together and no copyright prevented the production of dirt-cheap editions. By present copyright law, if applied to the past, Homer's heirs would still own the Iliad, as the Disney heirs still own Mickey Mouse.

"Property rights at common law were founded on Locke’s idea that you own yourself ... so you own those things you create." - dbhalling. I agree 100%. If I see someone growing big, sweet apples which do not exist in nature, and I figure out how they did that, do I not own the product of my labor as I own myself? It seems to me that you insist that the IDEA of finding good apples and grafting them to a trunk must belong to the first person who figured it out - and for how long? It used to be like seven years for patents, but now, for copyrights it is the life of the author plus the life of Mickey Mouse. What is the objective standard?

Can you steal something that is given away free? The formula for Coca Cola is secret. However, many brands of cola drink are on the market. Are all the cola drinks the intellectual property of the first person to make one?

How about the uncola? For some years in the late 1960s, 7-Up marketed itself as the uncola. If you invent A, then by definition, do you own the rights to non-A which would not exist but for A?

How about the curve ball? (See below to Rich Roberts.) Should the baseball curve ball pitch (knuckleball, slider, sinker, screwball, high heat,...) be patentable? Why or why not?

When John Galt brought Quentin Daniels to the Gulch, he bought out the competition.
If that had not happened, his motor would have remained the property of Daniels. The assumption here is that there is only ONE way to do this. That is seldom true. In fact, I submit that you must be disciplined to slavishly copy without injecting yourself into the process. You would be hard pressed to cite a single example of a so-called "copycat" product that did not offer its own innovations, tweaks, or improvements.

Moreover, there is a certain objective reality here. The original inventor has a distinct advantage over any copyist. If not, then the market has responded to whoever can best meet the needs of those who want to buy. It is a sad tale from baseball that the curve ball has at least two inventors and the man we think really was first ended up poor and dead. But, he was not a great pitcher, either. He just had a gimmick that did not do him as much good as steady work. That is an objective reality.

In _The Anti-Capitalist Mentality_ von Mises wrote about intellectuals who complained that their treatises did not sell as well as murder mysteries; then, he examined the anti-capitalist tone of the murder mysteries. Here, too, I see a kind of anti-capitalist assumption that all goods must be rival and exclusive - and that denies services.

I agree. And in fashions, the TRADEMARK is protected. The product is not. You cannot make stuff with Tommy Hilfiger's name on it, but you can copy it. Indeed, absent the label, what is a Tommy Hilfiger or a Colors of Benetton or Banana Republic that a generic sweatshirt or no-band jeans are not? Without the label, can you tell one from the other?

On the other hand... some years back, at a coin show J. P. Martin was standing around. He is an expert in ancients, well known. Someone came up to him for an authentication. He tried to beg off: he was at the convention to buy for himself and have a good time. But they pressed, so he looked at the coin. "Fake." But I bought it in Cappodocia! "Still fake." How can you tell?? And the man's companion said - this was in Detroit - if you saw a Chevy with a Ford nameplate would you know the difference? "Sure." Same thing for him.

My point is that some products are distinguishable by their designs, Fords from Chevys, Volvos from Saabs. But fashions... I dunno...

And to the point, an old friend once restored an old Mustang. When I told he about fake coins, she told me about fake vintage car parts. That being so, ancient Greek coins are not protected by intellectual property rights, but Mustang carbureters are (in theory). In both cases, enforcement is exactly the same. Ford has no incentive to protect their protect. Anyone can make one. It is up to the expert to know the difference.

I suggest that the difference between a mature market and a vibrant one is whether the rule is "the customer is always right" versus "caveat emptor". Myself, I prefer the mature market. But mature markets are not innovative - and that is the point here.

I agree with that assessment. Galt abandoned it and said that only his equal could recreate it and left it unsaid that he did not expect that in his lifetime. Suppose, though, that the motor had gone into production. Without seeing the plans or anything, Daniels could have worked it through, knowing at least that it could be done.

Also - a point not emphasized by the patent lawyers - once the patent is published, all your secrets are out. The unique components are identified. The so-called copyist just needs to do the same thing a different way. In electronics, it is done all the time. A certain chip does something. You just do the same thing with a different circuitry.

In the fashion markets theft is the norm. "Everyone steals." Watch the Johanna Blakely video. That is why fashion is vibrant. It as often builds up from the street to the design houses as it does come down via the knock-off rack. And as the video shows, people who buy GENUINE articles would never be customers of the knock-offs. Laurel and I went to lunch with a delightful old couple and realized their actual status when we discussed the Target scams over last year's holiday shopping season. They had no idea what we referred to because they would never shop at Target. So, for people like that, paying for originality is the norm.

Note also that Design Houses also steal from the street. Pre-stressed clothing is just one example.

According to the pseudo-Lockean theory, Christian Dior owes huge royalty payments to actual poor people whose clothes are worn out and tattered.

their views on property rights are as dismally faith-based as environmentalism. There was seriously a comment linking to an article about intellectual property and tolkien's middle earth. They haven't a reasoned argument in the real world so better go have it in Lord of the Rings. Sad Halling fact. Our son is highly influenced by some von mises/libertarian views on subjectivity. They want to short cut philosophy."because it's all subjective, you have no right to impose your will on me." Utopia or anarchism is what this kind of thinking smacks up against-NOT reason. It's one of the many reasons Rand argued with von mises. It ultimately rests on utilitarianism. Reason not required.

all the time. it's one of the huge bones we have to pick with China. knock-offs. They use trademarks and copyrights. Trademarks are HUGE in the fashion industry. it's why a pair of CROCS costs $50 and a knock off pair at Walmart costs $6.

I didn't see that. Sounds like they oppose honest debate as well. Depressing.

did you see that the site admin gave db -29 points on his posts. db is like the jfuchs of the von mises site. up is down

yes

Isn't a copycat by definition stealing someone elses idea? I can't make something a famous designer made and put their name on it. If Ford developed a more efficient engine he should benefit from that. I am free to develop a better one and I should benefit from that.

No one in the fashion industry steals?

Daniels got an invitation to the gulch out of it.

Galt walked away from it. Daniels also walked away from the reverse engineering.

I have always felt that Galt left clues behind as sort of a challenge. In other words if any of you can build it then it is yours. He left without obtaining a patent and 20th century motors is bk so Daniels would own the motor.

Thanks Db. I thought the reasoning in this article was strange. Some of the examples didn't seem to fit the point he was trying to make. I was disappointed this appeared on the Mises site. I usually agree with them.

the question would turn on whether Galt had a duty to assign the inventions to his employer. how is this relevant to this discussion? In the gulch, there was still trade and value for value. Daniels would never have stolen galt's engine. It was Galt's. If it was working in the Gulch it was not Daniels'

you got me on Apple. they do steal. they also create. computer industry. BIGGER than fashion and most importantly for mankind, disruptive.

To trump fashions, you have to pull in four different industries. You ran the list as "...Google, Apple, IBM, Boeing, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, EBay."That is really Apple, IBM, and Cisco. Boeing. Google. eBay and Amazon. And as we all know Apple prospered because "great artists steal."

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

"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. "
Fashion Industry is much larger than Google, Apple, IBM, Boeing, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, EBay, etc huh? please provide a credible source for your argument. I debunked it before and actually posted all major industries in the US economy for example. fashion doesn't even come close. why is it people are quite happy to postulate copying inventions but would be outraged if they were plagiarized or their merchandise and trademarks copied(mark Cuban).