IP Bleg
UPDATE: those are great answers in the comments; thanks very much to the three of you.
History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
UPDATE: those are great answers in the comments; thanks very much to the three of you.
Thanks, David. I've read lots of your stuff, but not that. I'll check it out.
Richard Epstein and Richard Posner both have defended monopolies, including copy-"right." So has Gary Becker, I think.
And don't forget Rothbard's mythical copyright stamp, which would have enabled you to stamp "copyright" on an invention. If anyone can find a common law precedent for that one, please let us know.
Kinsella lists me as "perhaps" supporting IP, which is about right. There are clearly good arguments for it, also against. In _Law's Order_ I defend the copyright/patent distinction, offering reasons why it makes sense to provide longer protection more easily granted to the sorts of things protected by conventional copyright law than to the sorts of things protected by patent law. But I don't think that there or elsewhere I offer an overall conclusion on whether we are better off with or without IP protection.
You might want to check Israel Kirzner's "Entrepreneurship, Entitlement and Economic Justice" first published in Eastern Economic Journal #4 (1978), subsequently in Left Libertarianism and its Critics Eds. Vallentyne and Steiner. Although saying little about intellectual property, he grounds the idea of just property acquisition in an act of creation, and this presumably incorporates the idea of intellectual creation.
I list several in my Against Intellectual Property (PDF version link); they include: Ayn Rand (and followers, e.g. David Kelley, Murray Franck, George Reisman); Galambos; J. Neil Schulman, Spencer and Spooner; judge Posner, plus perhaps David Friedman, and Ejan Mackaay. From notes 31, 32:
31See Andrew J. Galambos, The Theory of Volition, vol. 1, ed. Peter N. Sisco (San Diego: Universal Scientific Publications, 1999); J. Neil Schulman, “Informational
Property: Logorights,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures (1990); and Rand, “Patents and Copyrights.” Other Objectivists (Randians) who support IP include George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Ill.: Jameson Books, 1996), pp. 388–89; David Kelley, “Response to Kinsella,” IOS Journal 5, no. 2 (June 1995): 13, in response to N. Stephan Kinsella, “Letter on Intellectual Property Rights,” IOS Journal 5, no. 2 (June 1995): 12–13; Murray I. Franck,
“Ayn Rand, Intellectual Property Rights, and Human Liberty,” 2 audio tapes, Institute for Objectivist Studies Lecture; Laissez-Faire Books (1991); Murray I. Franck, “Intellectual Property Rights: Are Intangibles True Property,” IOS Journal 5, no. 1 (April 1995); and Murray I. Franck, “Intellectual and Personality Property,” IOS Journal 5, no. 3 (September 1995): 7, in response to Kinsella, “Letter on Intellectual Property Rights.” It is difficult to find published discussions of Galambos’s idea, apparently because his own theories bizarrely restrict the ability of his supporters to disseminate them. See, e.g., Jerome Tuccille, It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand (San Francisco: Cobden Press, 1971), pp. 69–71.
Scattered references to and discussions of Galambos’s theories may be found, however, in David Friedman, “In Defense of Private Orderings: Comments on Julie Cohen’s ‘Copyright and the Jurisprudence of Self-Help’,” Berkeley Technology
Law Journal 13, no. 3 (Fall 1998): n. 52; and in Stephen Foerster, “The Basics of Economic Government,” http://www.economic.net/articles/ar0001.html.
32Lysander Spooner, “The Law of Intellectual Property: or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in Their Ideas,” in The Collected Works of Lysander Spooner, vol. 3, ed. Charles Shively (1855; reprint, Weston, Mass.: M&S Press, 1971); Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Ethics, vol. 2 (1893; reprint, Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Press, 1978), part IV, chap. 13, p.
121. See also Wendy McElroy, “Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patent,” http://www.zetetics.com/mac/intpro1.htm and http://www.zetetics.com/mac
/intpro2.htm
35David D. Friedman, “Standards As Intellectual Property: An Economic
Approach,” University of Dayton Law Review 19, no. 3 (Spring 1994): 1109–29;
and David D. Friedman, Law’s Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why it
Matters (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000), chap. 11. Ejan
Mackaay also advocates IP on utilitarian grounds, in “Economic Incentives in
Markets for Information and Innovation,” in “Symposium: Intellectual Property,”
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13, no. 3, p. 867. Earlier utilitarian
advocates of IP include John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. See Arnold
Plant, “The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions,” in Selected
Economic Essays and Addresses (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974), p. 44;
Roger E. Meiners and Robert J. Staaf, “Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks:
Property or Monopoly?” in “Symposium: Intellectual Property,” Harvard Journal
of Law & Public Policy 13, no. 3, p. 911.
***
See also some listed here in the "Pro IP" section, including James DeLong.
J. C. Lester, author of Escape from Leviathan: Liberty, Welfare, and Anarchy Reconciled (London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000), offers a defense of IP in that book.