Patents?

I have perceived an exceptional interest in patents this quarter, and while there will be more in the book on patents, I'd like to revisit here an exchange of emails between a prominent patent attorney and me. Please be warned there is some joking in between the serious conversation, and I've added J to clarify when I am speaking and S to clarify when the patent attorney is:


Mr. Kinsella,



I enjoyed your bagatelle at Rockwell's site, but am surprised a presumed free-marketer could be a patent attorney. Fortunately patents are largely ignored, but where they are exercised in any scope, like the pharmaceutical industry, they are simply a Berlin Wall.



50 schools around USA and Canada use my teaching material wherein I challenge the concept. I am rolling the argument into part of a text I am writing. I presume you remain convinced of the efficacy of patents, in spite of the force of this email. Would you be interested in reviewing my arguments with a view to correcting any errors?



John Spiers


***

Mr. Spiers,



I do oppose patent and copyright laws. Why do you presume otherwise? Do you drive on roads? I do too, although I oppose the notion of government ownership of roads. I assume you never use the U.S. post office to send mail, correct?



I have a lengthy article forthcoming on why IP is illegitimate, and possibly a shorter one on LewRockwell.com in a week or two. An earlier draft is now online at:



http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/kinsella6.pdf



Thus, I suspect I will not strongly disagree with your conclusions, unless, that is, you argue that it it immoral to participate in today's immoral system or some such argument, which is different than the argument that patent laws are immoral and ought to be abolished. However, if you want to send your piece on, for me to agree with or refine, send it on.



Stephan



p.s. what's a bagatelle?

****


In a message dated 7/25/00 6:12:07 PM, Stephan writes:

S- I do oppose patent and copyright laws. Why do you presume otherwise?

J- Perhaps the Dominicans are having their effect, but I would presume a patent attorney would be ... a devotee of patents ...***

S- Do you drive on roads? I do too, although I oppose the notion of government ownership of roads. I assume you never use the U.S. post office to send mail, correct?
000200000E4500000952 E3F,
J- Availing oneself of patent protection one can eschew quite easily, but roads and the mails not so. I did a small experiment on a country with roads and mail being matters of private initiative, but it ended badly. You may have heard of the country, Morefreebeeria. I started it in my apartment but when the Domino's delivery boy refused to accept our currency, angrily I might add, my followers lost heart. The experiment ended completely when about an hour later my subjects were appalled to see me slapped around by a mere patrol officer from a foreign country.***



S- I have a lengthy article forthcoming on why IP is illegitimate, and possibly a shorter one on LewRockwell.com in a week or two. An earlier draft is now online at:



http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/kinsella6.pdf

J- I'll read it eagerly, I am far more interested in citing the authorities on the topic than having my lashing out affirmed.***



S- Thus, I suspect I will not strongly disagree with your conclusions, unless, that is, you argue that it it immoral to participate in today's immoral system or some such argument, which is different than the argument that patent laws are immoral and ought to be abolished. However, if you want to send your piece on, for me to agree with or refine, send it on.



J- You are too kind...but we are born into the system, and it is enough to realize the immorailty and object, and then naturally lose the argument in most cases. We don't have to win, just do what's right.***



S- p.s. what's a bagatelle? >>

J- A trifle, nothing to get excited about.***

John Spiers

In a message dated 7/25/00 7:37:53 PM, kinsella@swbell.net writes:

S- That is a matter of degree and disagreement. A high-tech company now is

vulnerable to many attacks by others. It would be foolish not to arm

oneself with patents, which one can at least assert defensively against

those who go on the offense. Surely, nothing wrong with that...?



J- Here is the rub, defense of this sort is inherently wrong. The customer is the thing, not the competition. Ultimately the only defense is the customer's good will, and every trace of effort ought to be directed to the customer, and none to any malinvestment in the form of "barriers to entry" or "intellectual property rights protection". Unpatented Tylenol is the world most popular medicine, hugely profitable, safe, cheap, plentiful, accessible with endless versions, and much competition. The chemical that makes up Viagra costs as little as acetomenaphin, yet Viagra is expensive, severly limited, dangerous inasmuch there are only 2 doses available, expensive, and hugely profitable for only one company. Further, moms are forced to work outside the home to pay taxes to maintain a system where the least talented scientists (the FDA) approve what they likely are uncertain of, and ATF enforce with penalties up to and including execution (when all is said and done, WACO was ultimately a drug raid), after an item is patented. ahem..I do go on... anyway, it is extremely important that a good portion of businesses in any year go under. Otherwise, resources are misallocated, and someone has to lose unjustly to subsidize the useless. It seems to me a patent attorney arguing that the recent and western innovation of patents is a failure and ought to be abandoned would be a very good thing.***



S p.s. what's a bagatelle? >>

>

J- ***A trifle, nothing to get excited about.***



S- Well, then, if it's no big deal, I don't see why you refuse to tell me.

>>

J- O dear, are you having me on? I should have given you my first conceived answer, "look it up."

Bookmark this post --- Email this post