Semantics and IP Antics

Education, IP Law, Libertarian Theory
By / / 1 Comment / 2 minutes of reading
Share

One of the reasons why IP-abolitionists oppose “intellectual property” is because IP monopolies in effect boil down to a restriction on existent ownership rights. To this charge, a common retort heard even from libertarians, is that all property rights are not absolute (i.e. “you can’t shoot your gun wherever you choose”, “the right to swing your fist ends by my nose”, etc.) and so too IP laws can morally and thus justly restrict people from using certain configurations or arrangements of their already owned property.

It occurred to me that this is a mere semantic quibble. If we substitute the word “to” for the word “with”, we no longer have an equivalence between IP and those examples. For argument’s sake, we can even agree with the gist of those examples and suppose that an owner may not always have the right to do certain actions with his property but this wouldn’t contradict a fundamental right to do certain actions to his property, which is more precisely what anti-IP arguers hold.
This retort focuses solely on the restrictionist view in that it’s [morally] just to have laws that restrict existent property rights. But those examples are a flawed comparison to begin with; we would never hold that property rights to a gun would allow the violation of another persons’ property.
This is because ownership isn’t a bundle of certain permissible actions or rights, but rather the totality of  a “negative” quality– a restriction upon others from violating the owner’s right to control. In any given context, violations of property rights is what determines the impermissibility for any given action, not a deficiency in the ownership rights of the hypothetical gun or swinging-fist.

Semantics and IP Antics Read Post »

LSU Football, Trademark, and “Honey Badger”

IP Law, Mercantilism, Protectionism
By / / 2 Comments / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Honey BadgerI received three very useful and taxpayer-subsidized degrees from LSU. But I’ve never given them a dime, and never will (I do donate to my private high school, Baton Rouge’s Catholic High School). Up till now, there were two reasons for this. First, it’s a state university. I think they should be abolished. Second, like most modern universities, it is infected with, and propagandizes its students with, a bunch of horrible socialist, leftist, and statist ideas (luckily my two engineering degrees were largely immune from this, since you don’t have time for normative nonsense when trying to figure out electromagnetic fields, digital logic, and semiconductor physics; and even my law studies were mostly practical).

But now I have a third reason. I’m a big LSU football fan, and of course and am enjoying the current season, with LSU at 13-0 and slated to play Alabama (second only to Michigan on the annoying fans index) for the national championship next month. One of LSU’s most impressive players this year is sophomore cornerback Tyrann Matthieu, truly an amazing athlete, who has garnered the nickname “Honey Badger” “for his tenacious ability to play extremely tough football against much larger opponents, as well as his knack for making big plays”. As the Wikipedia entry for Honey Badger notes, “The nickname became popular during the 2011 college football season, when it was often referenced in the national media. ‘He takes what he wants’ said CBS sportscaster Verne Lundquist of Mathieu.” Other expressions used for him are “Honey Badger don’t care”.

Well, according to the “LSU Compliance,” Honey Badger Does Care–if you use “honey badger” without LSU’s permission and paying them an appropriate fee! This claim is surely false, as any permission is granted by, and any fees paid go to, LSU, not Mathieu. Whose nickname is it, anyway?

As the entry specifies:

The LSU Compliance Office has issued several Cease & Desist notifications for products including the name, likeness and/or image of LSU football student-athlete Tyrann Mathieu.

Please be advised that the sale of any products and/or advertisements including the name, likeness or image of this individual or any other LSU student-athlete is in violation of NCAA Bylaw 12.5.2.2 and could have a negative impact on the involved student-athlete’s eligibility.

Apparel or paraphernalia including the phrase “Honey Badger” accompanied by the number 7 or the individual’s name or any other variation thereof (e.g., TM7, TM, HB7, etc.) is prohibited. Because it is a recognizable nickname, “Honey Badger” is considered a likeness of Tyrann Mathieu under NCAA regulations.

?Examples of Impermissible Products/Advertisements ?
The word “Honey Bader” or an image of a Honey Badger accompanied by?: The number 7?
? TM7 (or any other likeness)
? Name of individual
? Image of individual?
? ?LSU

LSU then “helpfully” provides examples of “impermissible items” for which they have issued “Cease & Desist notifications”–just to let you know they mean business.

Truly disgusting, but par for the course for our mercantilist, protectionist, IP-centric form of corporatism in which the powerful state helps big corporations (and socialist state universities) bully individuals and small competitors with pseudo-“property rights” like patent, trademark, and copyright.

I’m sure Alabama pulls the same stunts. Otherwise I might have to hold my nose and pull for them on Jan. 9.

(h/t Skip Oliva)

[c4sif]

LSU Football, Trademark, and “Honey Badger” Read Post »

Thoughts on Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Revolution

IP Law, Non-Fiction Reviews
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

After reviews by Bryan Caplan and our own Stephan Kinsella got my attention, I read Alexander Tabarrok’s new “TED” e-book, Launching the Innovation Revolution.

I went in with an open mind, ready to applaud practical suggestions for incrementally increasing freedom in the area of intellectual property, even if Tabarrok didn’t endorse abolishing the entire patent system as I do. But I was still disappointed.

To Tabarrok’s credit, he does start by showing why patents aren’t necessary to have innovation (at least, he says, in most fields), and he does argue for shorter patent terms (for some things) and less patent protection (for some things). That’s all fine, as far as it goes.

Unfortunately, too much of the book is devoted to promoting new central-planning schemes that Tabarrok thinks would work better than current government programs. Kinsella discusses some of them in an update to his original review; I’ll discuss a couple more.
…

Thoughts on Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation RevolutionRead More »

Thoughts on Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Revolution Read Post »

Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Renaissance: Statism, not renaissance

IP Law
By / / 7 Comments / 16 minutes of reading
Share

As noted on Marginal Revolution, in Launching the Innovation Renaissance, erstwhile quasi-Austro-libertarian fellow traveler Alex Tabarrok has a new book out in the intriguing TED Books imprint, entitled Launching the Innovation Renaissance (Amzn link, B&N for Nook, also iTunes). The description of the book says:

How can we increase innovation? I look at patents, prizes, education, immigration, regulation, trade and other levers of innovation policy.

Tabarrok is presented as some radical or maverick, bravely challenging the modern horror of statism and patent. But he is not really against patents. In the book he says:

Patents, innovation prizes, patent buyouts and advance market all have their place. The key is to match problems to institutions.

So patents “have their place.” The patent system should be reformed, but it has its place! Of course patent reform is both unrealistic, and not a solution, any more than tax reform is needed.1 The only real tax reform is to lower the rates, not to shuffle things around and move from one type of tax to another. Likewise, the most meaningful IP reform, short of abolition, is to reduce the length of the term: patents, from 17, down to a shorter amount like 5 years; copyright, from over 100 years, to, say, 10 or 20. (See my post How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law.)

As for the “prizes,” in his new ebook he highlights private prizes like the X-Prize but downplays the fact that he thinks taxpayers should fund these prizes. But this is the idea. As I have noted previously,2 Tabarrok is in favor of a taxpayer-funded “medical innovation prize fund”–starting at “$80 billion per year, and increas[ing] with the growth in GDP“. Similar proposals include those by faux free marketeers Joseph Stiglitz and Forbes.com. (Update: I’ve read more of the book now; he doesn’t downplay the taxpayer-funded aspect of the prize system he (and socialist Bernie Sanders) advocates. He is explicit about it in the book.)

Of course, medical innovations are only a small slice of the space of technologies allegedly promoted by patent law (there are electronics, lasers, chemicals, data processing, pharmaceuticals, and so on; there are over 400 classes in the PTO’s classification system, and each class is divided into numerous subclasses). So if you extend this tax funded innovation prize idea, and replace all patents for all technology areas with tax funded prizes, you’d have to advocate $2 trillion to $20 trillion a year in taxes to stimulate the “right” amount of innovation. Or maybe more. Hurrah for “free market” “solutions” to our “problems.” What the hell, let’s be “bold” and make it $100 trillion of tax funded innovation prizes per year to create a utopia on earth by 2013! Or maybe a quadrillion dollars!

Sorry, did I say “replace”? As patents have their “place,” these prizes would not even replace the patent system, but supplement it. Injury upon injury! In this, I am reminded if calls for “replacing” the current income tax with a VAT or national sales tax. Of course, in practice this amounts to a call for adding a new sales tax on top of the current income tax, since the state will never give up the latter.3 Likewise, Tabarrok’s call for a taxpayer funded prize system would not result in this replacing the patent system, but being added on top of it, making things even worse. …

Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Renaissance: Statism, not renaissanceRead More »

  1. See Tyler Cowen on the VAT; Say No To Tax Reform. ↩

  2. See $30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The “Progressive-Libertarian” Solution and Libertarian Favors $80 Billion Annual Tax-Funded “Medical Innovation Prize Fund”. ↩

  3. See Tyler Cowen on the VAT; Say No To Tax Reform. ↩

Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Renaissance: Statism, not renaissance Read Post »

Scroll to Top