[ExI] Lessons from Tesla?

[Dan]

On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:45 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm inclined to question the example, and not simply because
>> of its broken window fallacy implications -- i.e., what roads
>> (even outside the aircraft industry) weren't taken -- but
>> because patents themselves are an example of government
>> intervention. It's not like it was a free market in aircraft
>> development and manufacture. Instead, the patent system 
>> granted [temporary] monopolies. Yes, the government altered
>> the policy during the war, but this sounds a lot like the old
>> saw about the government breaking one's legs but then providing
>> a really fine wheelchair, then touting the benefits of said
>> wheelchair.
>> 
>> (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying absent patents everything
>> would move faster and all of us would get our deepest technological
>> desires to come true. Even so, there seems to be much evidence that
>> patents do more harm than good. See, for example,
>> http://www.ics.uci.edu/community/news/press/view_press?id=89 )
> 
> Yes, I did think of this while posting. However, in the days of
> mechanical invention, I think patent law did far more good than
> harm. Today, software and DNA patents do more harm, but
> pharmaceutical and mechanical patents by and large seem like a
> good idea to me.

I'd have to see evidence for that.

> If you read "The Most Powerful Idea in the World - A STORY OF
> STEAM, INDUSTRY, AND INVENTION" by WILLIAM ROSEN, I think you
> may end up agreeing with his hypothesis that the British patent
> system was one of the most influential elements promoting the 
> industrial revolution.

I admit I haven't read that book... yet! :)

> Yes, I'm a libertarian bordering on anarchy. But one of the prime
> roles of government is that of protecting property from thieves.

For me, as you probably know, a libertarian who is not an anarchist is inconsistent.

> The only difficulty here is whether you see intellectual property
> as a valid form of property. And if it is, then you must concede
> that the government has a legitimate interest (or rather the People
> have a legitimate interest) in protecting that property (life,
> liberty and property in the original) from others.

There are serious problems with intellectual property inside the libertarian ambit. But let's say there is valid intellectual property, a bit problem then would be that the utilitarian argument would be irrelevant -- just like an argument that slavery was more efficient would be irrelevant. And it's harder to see why intellectual property would expire as it does under the current -- save for a ulitarian argument about it. (You wouldn't, as a libertarian, I trust, say that your ownership to your car expired after seventeen years simply because someone else might have produced your car by that time.)

> Now, I don't think software patents serve the same purpose today.
> A software patent would be like Douglas Adams saying, "I want to
> patent the phrase 'For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a
> second or so, nothing continued to happen.'" And to patent all
> phrases that are even a little bit like that. Thus also protecting,
> "I began walking to the store. After a moment, I continued to walk
> to the store." which I Kelly Anderson just wrote somewhat
> independently of the great said Adams.

The libertarian case against patents also applies to copyrights too and these variations would be irrelevant.

> Thus software should be protected, IMHO, like authorship, by
> copyright law, but not by patent law.

I'm not sure that would prevent much here. And the duration of a copyright is much longer. Litigation around copyrights now can be all over the place, with things like song writers being sued for having a melody similar to another song. Doesn't always succeed, of course, and I'm not saying you must either agree with all aspects of current intellectual property law or embrace an anti-IP position. 

> If you disagree that intellectual property is actual property
> in ANY case, then we have a different argument on our hands

I see it as very problematic, especially from a libertarian point of view. I don't think it meshes well with libertarian theories of property. Of course, that said, yes, many libertarians do support intellectual property. But this isn't a numbers game, but whether it actually makes sense from that perspective.

But the argument I was raising here was two-fold:

1. Government granted patents to the Wrights in the first place, so this wasn't like a market anarchy in patents that the government suddenly intervened in because of war. It was merely trading one intervention for another.

2. It seems like the case for patents as spurs to innovation is not a slamdunk one

> and in that case, I will side with Benjamin Franklin, who has
> sufficient libertarian and capitalistic cajones for my purposes.

This is an alien way of looking at things to me. I don't seek out a figure from history to rally around. I try to see if an argument has merit, regardless of who made it. In any case, Franklin was somewhat against patents, wasn't he? I've heard that he didn't patent any of his inventions, but I'm not well read on his life.

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/9fce3cfb/attachment.html>