RoR: Forum

Hypothetical: Person A, who believes that IP is unjust, invents Object A.

Believing that IP is unjust, he does not patent it. Person B copies the invention, patents it, and begins manufacturing and marketing Object A.

Now, not believing in IP, person A does not have a problem with this. But then, person B sues A for patent infiringement and forceably prevents him from maunfacutring Object A!

In light of this, Person C, who has invented Object C and also believes that IP is unjust, patents his invention.

Is filing a patent hypocritical? Simply filing is not, as he is only seeking to defend himself from agression.

If he uses that patent to sue someone who has copied his invention, then he is being a hypocrite.

So without jumping into the essence of the argument (whether or not IP should exist at all), I think Stephan's defense is legitimate.

Post 101

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 9:54am

Stephan:

I don't think [intellectual property] is "invalid." Any more than the concept of murder is invalid.

?????????

John, have you read ITOE? Concepts are formed through measurment omission. No two apples are exactly the same, but we identify the essential characteristics, and omit the particulars.

For example, we can observe people who commit acts of agression, and form the concept "criminal" to describe them. This is a valid concept.

But just because we find it useful to describe someone as a criminal (rather than "someone who has murdered, someone who has raped, someone who has assaulted") does not mean that we are sanctioning actually being a criminal.

Post 102

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 9:58am

In post #82 Stephan Kinsella responded to John Armaos:

Well, as an anarchist, I DO favor scrapipng the current judicial system.
As an anarchist you would have to be in favor of NO judicial system, not just our current one.
This is untrue.

John has had a wildly incorrect understanding of anarcho-capitalism for a very long time.

Post 103

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 10:04am

I asked Stephan, "Regarding anarchy, what if I decide to enforce a patent law against an innocent person, and you, believing this to be a violation of the person's rights, undertake to stop me. Are you not acting as a government by preventing me from enforcing my own version of justice?"

He replied, "I don't undersatnd your question. In anarchy there could be no patent rights in the first place, since there is no state or legislature."

Huh? So, are you saying that under anarchy there would be no rights of any kind, because there is no state or legislature to enforce them?

Suppose I tried to prevent you from stealing my invention. In other words, suppose I tried to stop you from marketing it without my permission. Wouldn't your defense agency try to stop me from enforcing my view of justice? And if so, wouldn't it be acting as a government.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/09, 10:10am)

Post 104

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 10:24am

Jonathan:

Hypothetical: Person A, who believes that IP is unjust, invents Object A.

Believing that IP is unjust, he does not patent it. Person B copies the invention, patents it, and begins manufacturing and marketing Object A.

Now, not believing in IP, person A does not have a problem with this. But then, person B sues A for patent infiringement and forceably prevents him from maunfacutring Object A!

In light of this, Person C, who has invented Object C and also believes that IP is unjust, patents his invention.

Is filing a patent hypocritical? Simply filing is not, as he is only seeking to defend himself from agression.

If he uses that patent to sue someone who has copied his invention, then he is being a hypocrite.

So without jumping into the essence of the argument (whether or not IP should exist at all), I think Stephan's defense is legitimate.

Bullshit! Stephan as an attorney doesn't know what his clients will do with a patent, and correct me if I'm wrong cannot stipulate how the patent can be used. Since he doesn't know what his clients will do and knowing that means with full intent he knowingly helps at least a fraction of his clients use patents in a way he finds to be immoral. That's still grossly hypocritical.

Post 105

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 10:26am

Bill:

I asked Stephan, "Regarding anarchy, what if I decide to enforce a patent law against an innocent person, and you, believing this to be a violation of the person's rights, undertake to stop me. Are you not acting as a government by preventing me from enforcing my own version of justice?"

He replied, "I don't undersatnd your question. In anarchy there could be no patent rights in the first place, since there is no state or legislature."

Huh? So, are you saying that under anarchy there would be no rights of any kind, because there is no state or legislature to enforce them?

No, of course not. There are rights always. The quesiton is are there *legal* (positive) rights--that is, actually enforced and respected versions of natural rights, in a given society. In today's society, positive rights mirror natural rights only imperfectly--I'm sure you would agree. There is overlap, but it's far from being a close fit, as it would be ideally. In a free society with no state, you remove one major source of the deviation--public or institutional criminality. But sure, natural rights would to some approximation be respected in a free society. However, it is not conceivable that the arbitrary, statist, decreed, legislated laws and rights that exist today (like the Americans with Disabilities Act, say) would exist in a free society. Some laws and rights can only arise by being *legislated*. In a free scoiety, there are decentralized courts, but no private "legislature"; the idea makes no sense. I view patent rights as a type of legislated right that could not arise naturally, organicaly, without decree by a centralized state.

Suppose I tried to prevent you from stealing my invention. In other words, suppose I tried to stop you from marketing it without my permission.

Let's be clear: your hypos is this: suppose you tried to trespass against me and my property, to stop me from using it as I see fit, because you think you have a partial ownership claim over my property, due to your thinking of a useful way to use your property. I.e., you want to use force to stop me from, say, tuning my fuel injector on my car, with my hands and tools, sitting in my driveway--because of your delusion that you have some claim over my property because you filed a document with some "invention claim company" that said you were the first to think of that way of adjusting a fuel injector?

In this case, of cousre, you are simply a nut who wants to invade the borders of my property. You would be dealt with the same as any nut or criminal.

If, instead of trying to physically stop me or take my property, you filed some lawsuit, everyone would laugh at you and it would instantly be dismissed--just as it would if you filed a claim in a private court system trying to sue me for racial discrimination or for failing to have 4 handicapped parking spots in my own parking lot.

Wouldn't your defense agency try to stop me from enforcing my view of justice?

Sure.

And if so, wouldn't it be acting as a government.

No, it would be acting as my agent. It's just doing what I have a right to do--to use force to defend my property. As Rand herself held, defensive force is justifiable. It is not initiated force. Merely using force against a loony criminal is not being "a government." It is certainly not being a state, which is what anarchist oppose. "Government" is ambiguous. We oppose the state: that is, the agency of institutionalized aggression.

Post 106

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 10:39am

Jonathan:

John, have you read ITOE? Concepts are formed through measurment omission. No two apples are exactly the same, but we identify the essential characteristics, and omit the particulars.

For example, we can observe people who commit acts of agression, and form the concept "criminal" to describe them. This is a valid concept.

But just because we find it useful to describe someone as a criminal (rather than "someone who has murdered, someone who has raped, someone who has assaulted") does not mean that we are sanctioning actually being a criminal.

Jonathan I don't understand your point here. A few posts back you and Stephan wouldn't even accept the idea there is such a thing as intellectual property, nevermind a recognition one has a right to it. So can I take this you accept there is such a thing as intellectual property? Plus you didn't respond to my post 78. If you don't think someone can own their labor, how is it that someone can trade their labor? How do you define the trader principle?

Rick:

John has had a wildly incorrect understanding of anarcho-capitalism for a very long time.

And so have you Rick. There is nothing to understand, it is incoherent.
(Edited by John Armaos on 4/09, 10:41am)

Post 107

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 10:50am

Stephan addressing Bill:

Let's be clear: your hypos is this: suppose you tried to trespass against me and my property, to stop me from using it as I see fit, because you think you have a partial ownership claim over my property, due to your thinking of a useful way to use your property. I.e., you want to use force to stop me from, say, tuning my fuel injector on my car, with my hands and tools, sitting in my driveway--because of your delusion that you have some claim over my property because you filed a document with some "invention claim company" that said you were the first to think of that way of adjusting a fuel injector?

In this case, of cousre, you are simply a nut who wants to invade the borders of my property. You would be dealt with the same as any nut or criminal.

If, instead of trying to physically stop me or take my property, you filed some lawsuit, everyone would laugh at you and it would instantly be dismissed--just as it would if you filed a claim in a private court system trying to sue me for racial discrimination or for failing to have 4 handicapped parking spots in my own parking lot.

Wouldn't your defense agency try to stop me from enforcing my view of justice?
Sure.

And if so, wouldn't it be acting as a government.
No, it would be acting as my agent.

What's the difference? And under what rules of due process would these hypothetical courts be using? Stephan's or Bill's?

Post 108

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 11:28am

There have been a lot of posts on this thread since I posted yesterday, but I'd still like to respond to a few points.

Stephan: "Not exactly: it's that there are no natural rights to patents, so the patent system is unjustified. Just like public roads are--do you drive on these?"

Of course. I have no other choice if I want to go places. Do you have no other choice if you want to earn money to support yourself and your family than to be a patent lawyer?

Stephan: "Because having this right [a patent] does not mean you are using it against anyone--same with copyright. All of us here have lots of copyrights. That's not our fault."

Stephan, this is absurd. What's the point of getting a state-granted patent if not to be able to enforce a legal claim *in the event* that the patent is violated?? Whether or not most people *actually* violate patents is irrelevant. The fact is that a patent is literally worthless without the government force to back it up! By your utilitarian analysis, such force would be unjust in this context, yet you've chosen to rely on that threat for part of your livelihood.

Stephan: "BTW patents are only about 10% or less of my current practice anyway, thank God."

Good. Then you wouldn't lose much of your income from giving that up and having integrity.

Stephan: "Yes, like most libertarians with a strong position on IP, you don't seem to understand how the system you seem to be in favor of really works."

Do I have a technical understanding of the US patent system? No, although I used to talk about it with a friend of mine who was a patent examiner, so I probably know more about it than most people. Do I have a general understanding of the essential nature of intellectual property protection? Yes. This conversation isn't about the current US patent system; it's about state-granted patents *per se*. You shouldn't conflate the two.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/09, 1:18pm)

Post 109

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 11:37am

Jon not to mention Stephan has no idea what his clients will do with a patent. He sticks his head in the sand pretending he is not willfully abetting the very thing he finds immoral.

Post 110

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 11:39am

Trager:

Stephan: "Not exactly: it's that there are no natural rights to patents, so the patent system is unjustified. Just like public roads are--do you drive on these?"

Of course. I have no other choice if I want to go places. Do you have no other choice if you want to earn money to support yourself and your family than to be a patent lawyer?

As I have noted, there is nothing inherently wrong w/ being a patent lawyer. It does not mean asserting patents against anyone. This is only one of many things a patent lawyer can do--95% of them legitimate. I don't do the 5%--patent enforcement/assertion/litigation.

Stephan: "Because having this right [a patent] does not mean you are using it against anyone--same with copyright. All of us here have lots of copyrights. That's not our fault."

Stephan, this is absurd. What's the point of getting a state-granted patent if not to be able to enforce a legal claim *in the event* that the patent is violated??

I've explained this many times. It's primarily defensive--to assert in a counterclaim against someone who is suing YOU for patent infringement. This is NOT wrong, since it's defensive force.

Whether or not most people *actually* violate patents is irrelevant. The fact is that a patent is literally worthless without the government force to back it up?? By your utilitarian moral analysis, such force would be unjust in this context,

No, only if asserted against innocent victims. Not if asserted as a counterclaim against someone threatening to sue me for patent infringement.

Stephan: "BTW patents are only about 10% or less of my current practice anyway, thank God."

Good. Then you wouldn't lose much of your income from giving that up and having integrity.

10% of my job is patent related, and this patent practice falls in the 95% part of patent law that is legitimate. I don't do patent litigation, and if I did, it would be defense.

Stephan: "Yes, like most libertarians with a strong position on IP, you don't seem to understand how the system you seem to be in favor of really works."

Do I have a technical understanding of the procedural details of the US patent system? No, although I used to talk about it with a friend of mine who was previously a patent examiner, so I probably know more about it than most people. Do I have a general understanding of the essential nature of intellectual property protection? Yes. This conversation isn't about the current US patent system; it's about state-granted patents *per se*. You shouldn't conflate the two.

This makes you guys slippery: if I criticize various features of the current system as unjust, you crawfish out of it and say that you don't favor that. When I ask you waht the hell you DO favor, you fudge and say that you are not an expert. Sounds a lot like the way theists argue about "God".

Post 111

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 11:46am

But you still help people file a patent and you don't know what your client will do in the future with that patent. You do realize your client today may not be your client in the future? Do you ask your clients what is your intent with filing a patent? Can you stipulate the patent will only be used in a way that you morally sanction?

Post 112

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 12:29pm

Armaos: "But you still help people file a patent and you don't know what your client will do in the future with that patent."

actually, I do, since I only have one client--the one I work for. I control all that.

"You do realize your client today may not be your client in the future? Do you ask your clients what is your intent with filing a patent? Can you stipulate the patent will only be used in a way that you morally sanction?"

If you sell someone a gun, do you have to make them "stipulate" they will only use it for good? Dude, we live by right, not by permission.

Post 113

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 12:46pm

Stephan:

If you sell someone a gun, do you have to make them "stipulate" they will only use it for good?

Difference is using a gun for evil purposes is already against the law. Using a patent for what you deem to be evil purposes is not against the law.

Keep rationalizing to yourself there buddy.

Armaos: "But you still help people file a patent and you don't know what your client will do in the future with that patent."

actually, I do, since I only have one client--the one I work for. I control all that.

So you won't take any action against me if I start up a company of my own using an identical company name to your client's company name, logo and inventions etc?

Post 114

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 1:54pm

Armaos:

If you sell someone a gun, do you have to make them "stipulate" they will only use it for good?
Difference is using a gun for evil purposes is already against the law. Using a patent for what you deem to be evil purposes is not against the law.

This is irrelevant. It's also not against the law to sue someone for discrimination, though it is immoral and a violation of rights. Yet if I sell you a computer, it's not my fault if you use it to draft the pleadings for such a lawsuit.

Keep rationalizing to yourself there buddy.

It's not a rationalization; I think you are just kind of ignorant of the way patent lawyers practice and interface with clients.

Armaos: "But you still help people file a patent and you don't know what your client will do in the future with that patent."

actually, I do, since I only have one client--the one I work for. I control all that.

So you won't take any action against me if I start up a company of my own using an identical company name to your client's company name, logo and inventions etc?

Nah, I have other things on my plate.

Post 115

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 2:03pm

Jonathan I don't understand your point here. A few posts back you and Stephan wouldn't even accept the idea there is such a thing as intellectual property, nevermind a recognition one has a right to it. So can I take this you accept there is such a thing as intellectual property? Plus you didn't respond to my post 78. If you don't think someone can own their labor, how is it that someone can trade their labor? How do you define the trader principle?

Whoa! I only addressed whether you can "own" labor... I specifically avoided jumping into the IP discussion as a whole.

Also, you and Stephan have gone back and forth on this a million times, I put in my two cents, but if you haven't worked it out, chances are you won't. That's why I didn't respond.

(Edited by Jonathan Fauth on 4/09, 2:05pm)

Post 116

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 2:21pm

I originally wrote to Stephan:

But you still help people file a patent and you don't know what your client will do in the future with that patent.

Stephan replied:

actually, I do, since I only have one client--the one I work for. I control all that.

I then asked:

So you won't take any action against me if I start up a company of my own using an identical company name to your client's company name, logo and inventions etc?

To which Stephan said:

Nah, I have other things on my plate.

So let me just make this crystal clear. If I bought some land across the street from your sole client's current company location, and I built an identical building, with an identical sign, using an identical logo, selling identical products, advertising and marketing with this identical logo, you nor your client would take any legal action against me?

Post 117

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 2:47pm

Jon Trager wrote:

Stephan: "Because having this right [a patent] does not mean you are using it against anyone--same with copyright. All of us here have lots of copyrights. That's not our fault."

Stephan, this is absurd. What's the point of getting a state-granted patent if not to be able to enforce a legal claim *in the event* that the patent is violated??

This just appeared on slashdot.org:

"RedHat went to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals asking for limits on software patents yesterday. They have not uploaded their full brief yet online, but promise to post it soon. Here's a tidbit: 'Given the litigation risk, some open source companies, including Red Hat, acquire patents for the sole purpose of asserting them defensively in the event they are faced with a future lawsuit. Red Hat also provides open source intellectual property protections through our Open Source Assurance Program that protects our customers and encourages them to deploy with confidence. Our strategy is a prudent one and mitigates the risk of patent lawsuits, but it would be unnecessary if the system itself were fixed.'"

How about that! "...some open source companies, including Red Hat, acquire patents for the sole purpose of asserting them defensively in the event they are faced with a future lawsuit."

Sorry to burst your bubble, Jon and John, but 'dems da facts.

Post 118

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 3:57pm

Sorry to burst your bubble, Jon and John, but 'dems da facts.

Which I'm not disputing. But I'd still like to hear Stephan's response to my post 116.

Post 119

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 4:34pm