Kade's back

[Bman]

Many libertarians believe in property rights but not intellectual property "rights". A lot of work has gone into showing the difference.

And I tend to view the idea as flawed. While it would promote spending, it wouls stifle investing. For instance take this into consideration. I invest 2 years of my life and $10,000,000 dollars of my money coming up with an invention. I'm ready to launch my product. I'm already down the drain 2 years of my life and $10,000,000, now I also have the production to account for. So to recoup for my efforts I have to charge $150 per product to concievably make my money back. Now someone takes my idea and spends only the money needed for the production line. Never had to do any R&D. And the guy I'm goign against was born rich, and his family has had a hold on every resource known to man. So he can sell the item for $50.

Now how this all sounds like a good thing to me remains a bit allusive, although I can see maybe, just maybe how someone could convince me that the money would be there for R&D. How that exactly happens without social programs is beyond me.

But more importantly it's the issue of property itself. If I have something and you don't. It's mine. If I decide to loan it to you sell it to you let you borrow it, or have it for free is 100% at my discretion. Some would say you can't call ideas property. However, anyone who is AIP has already suffered defeat on that side because they've already admitted its existance.

Lastly. I don't see how we can call this topic free market. Conceptually it is free market either way. To look at it one has to be looking at what a new idea is to a free market. Well, quite simply it is new. Even if someone had a temporary monopoly for an idea the market place would decide its value. Could the value be cheaper with competition? Certainly. Are people going to pay too much for something they lived the previous duration of their life without? Maybe, but you'd be a fool.

 

[user]

And I tend to view the idea as flawed. While it would promote spending, it wouls stifle investing. For instance take this into consideration. I invest 2 years of my life and $10,000,000 dollars of my money coming up with an invention. I'm ready to launch my product. I'm already down the drain 2 years of my life and $10,000,000, now I also have the production to account for. So to recoup for my efforts I have to charge $150 per product to concievably make my money back. Now someone takes my idea and spends only the money needed for the production line. Never had to do any R&D. And the guy I'm goign against was born rich, and his family has had a hold on every resource known to man. So he can sell the item for $50.

Now how this all sounds like a good thing to me remains a bit allusive, although I can see maybe, just maybe how someone could convince me that the money would be there for R&D. How that exactly happens without social programs is beyond me.

But more importantly it's the issue of property itself. If I have something and you don't. It's mine. If I decide to loan it to you sell it to you let you borrow it, or have it for free is 100% at my discretion. Some would say you can't call ideas property. However, anyone who is AIP has already suffered defeat on that side because they've already admitted its existance.

Lastly. I don't see how we can call this topic free market. Conceptually it is free market either way. To look at it one has to be looking at what a new idea is to a free market. Well, quite simply it is new. Even if someone had a temporary monopoly for an idea the market place would decide its value. Could the value be cheaper with competition? Certainly. Are people going to pay too much for something they lived the previous duration of their life without? Maybe, but you'd be a fool.

First of all, before we get into any examples with numbers, assuming you believe in rights in the first place, that should be enough to come to a conclusion. If by "AIP" you mean anti-IP, no, being anti-IP doesn't mean you've admitted its existence. Being anti-IP generally means you do not believe IP exists.

 

[Bman]

First of all, before we get into any examples with numbers, assuming you believe in rights in the first place, that should be enough to come to a conclusion. If by "AIP" you mean anti-IP, no, being anti-IP doesn't mean you've admitted its existence. Being anti-IP generally means you do not believe IP exists.

Well you would have admitted that it conceptually exists. This alone has major significance. Now it's a matter of whether or not Itellectual Property should be protected or not. Not whether or not it exists.

 

[user]

Well you would have admitted that it conceptually exists. This alone has major significance. Now it's a matter of whether or not Itellectual Property should be protected or not. Not whether or not it exists.

No, of course not. Just because you discuss something doesn't mean you believe it exists. Just ask any atheist.

 

[Bman]

No, of course not. Just because you discuss something doesn't mean you believe it exists. Just ask any atheist.

Theoretically, just pronouncing the name god gives god existance. Just maybe not in an actual physical form that actually has any magic powers or awareness.

A concept is a noun.

 

[user]

Theoretically, just pronouncing the name god gives god existance. Just maybe not in an actual physical form that actually has any magic powers or awareness.

A concept is a noun.

So a word or phrase exists. That doesn't mean what the word or phrase represents must exist.

 

[Bman]

So a word or phrase exists. That doesn't mean what the word or phrase represents must exist.

Sure. But it exists non the less. In the end I can tend to just accept we can agree to disagree. It's more of the other comments I made that raise serious concern for me to think that not protecting Intellectual Property would lead to only good things. Or even a sizable majority of good things.

 

[user]

Sure. But it exists non the less. In the end I can tend to just accept we can agree to disagree. It's more of the other comments I made that raise serious concern for me to think that not protecting Intellectual Property would lead to only good things. Or even a sizable majority of good things.

Well, here's the problem. If you believe in natural rights, no amount of "good things" should be enough for you to want those rights to be violated. If you don't, there are still other concerns.

 

[Conza88]

Well if you take something from someone and give it to everyone that is socialism defined!

Completely irrational. What is owned? And what is being given away?

OH wait, you are for a MONOPOLY... just like the state has on violence. Sounds pretty socialist to me.

Tell me, wtf is FREE MARKET about a government imposed Monopoly?

If that confuses you I don't know what else to say. And any Austrian economist who believes in standing AIP, better check himself if he doesn't think he bleeds some green socialist blood. Face it IP is not an agent of the free market. Ideas are additions not necessary agents of the free market. To date any argument I've heard against IP could also be used against PP. But, I'll wait to finish reading before I show you just how socialist my reading believes me this topic to be.

*Facepalm*

Of course IP is not an agent of the freemarket. It is mercantilistic. It needs government intervention to prop up the monopoly and restrict innovation, growth and prosperity.

No free market does that. IP is not actually "PROPERTY" in the real Libertarian sense of the word.

That may be the most dogmatic remark I've ever heard. You make me think that Theocrat might actually be open minded enough to vote someone into the presidency who is a practicing Pagan.

So yes, you've said Austrian Economics contains socialism.

Thanks for professing your ignorance. Good job.

Truth and Justice? More like opinion and two faces.

You may be laughing, but in the grand scope of things, you are losing. THANK GOD!

Losing what? You're a statist. You're advocating a government imposed monopoly, which has completely destroyed innovation in many fields.

The structure and insanity you support is LOSING. No laughs about it.

 

[Conza88]

BINGO!

My only question is why go that far and not apply the same logic to resources.

Ahhh so there is where the ignorance comes from.

You don't even understand the fundamental principle of Libertarianism.

Lockean Homesteading property rights.

You know, self ownership - you own your body, and it translates to what you mix your labour with.

You sit there, you think of some idea, like the WHEEL. You then proclaim that as YOUR PROPERTY? You then construct a wheel, and then you want to put a patent on it, and restrict everyone else from making a wheel for the length of that patent. Thanks to the enforceability of the state.

IP undermines civilization and progress.

Nay, you don't own the idea to a wheel. Or the script you wrote. You get a profound first mover basis and obviously those buying your books will want to SUPPORT the author, and not some generic copy from some random publisher, they will obviously choose yours over the other, if prices are similar, so that they can see more books of yours in the future.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker-arch.html

 

[Bman]

Completely irrational. What is owned? And what is being given away?

OH wait, you are for a MONOPOLY... just like the state has on violence. Sounds pretty socialist to me.

Tell me, wtf is FREE MARKET about a government imposed Monopoly?



*Facepalm*

Of course IP is not an agent of the freemarket. It is mercantilistic. It needs government intervention to prop up the monopoly and restrict innovation, growth and prosperity.

No free market does that. IP is not actually "PROPERTY" in the real Libertarian sense of the word.



So yes, you've said Austrian Economics contains socialism.

Thanks for professing your ignorance. Good job.



Losing what? You're a socialist. You're advocating a government imposed monopoly, which has completely destroyed innovation in many fields.

The structure and insanity you support is LOSING. No laughs about it.

We're not ready for our discussion. However, I'm more than willing to continue dialog with user.

Conza you're going to have to wait till I'm done reading the books you want me to to get into this fully with you. I mean I have no facts from you. You give me no direct answer and you only cite books, which means I have to take sometime to fully understand your point of view.

To point out you just called me a socialist because I'm advocating a government to impose a monopoly. At the same time you are showing me a stacked deck the could only have a level playing fied with government assistance. And this is the one hope I have to find in my reading so I can say hey you got something, but I haven't read anything of the such. If you think temporary monopolies are a bad thing, I can't wait to see what the permant ones that develop from the stacked deck you'd like to see.

You give me no evidence of your statement to be fact with an example. Just books. So you'll just have to wait. Hopefully, the books will do you justice. I'm not done.

 

[Bman]

Ahhh so there is where the ignorance comes from.

You don't even understand the fundamental principle of Libertarianism.

Lockean Homesteading property rights.

You know, self ownership - you own your body, and it translates to what you mix your labour with.

You sit there, you think of some idea, like the WHEEL. You then proclaim that as YOUR PROPERTY? You then construct a wheel, and then you want to put a patent on it, and restrict everyone else from making a wheel for the length of that patent. Thanks to the enforceability of the state.

IP undermines civilization and progress.

Nay, you don't own the idea to a wheel. Or the script you wrote. You get a profound first mover basis and obviously those buying your books will want to SUPPORT the author, and not some generic copy from some random publisher, they will obviously choose yours over the other, if prices are similar, so that they can see more books of yours in the future.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker-arch.html

Ahh and see here is wher you are ignorant.

You somehow believe that Mozart simply came out of the womb and wrote 'Flute Concerto No. 2 In D Major – K. 314'

Yet it's not that simple. What he did was from the fruits of his labour. How an idea is not a prouct of ones labour is beyond me, but obviously you think that, and I'm not quite sure how that differers from any other type of work.

The difference is this.

One side of your coin supports those who go out and build something physical and reward them. But for someone who spent the same time educating themselves on how to do something for the first time you give no credit for. The efforts that person made have no value to you. So why would the other? It's rather confusing.

 

[user]

Bman, just because I believe something shouldn't be banned doesn't mean I believe it's necessarily a good thing.

 

[Bman]

Bman, just because I believe something shouldn't be banned doesn't mean I believe it's necessarily a good thing.

Then I would take it that you see it as a less government type of move. My problem with this is that a lot of IP arguments like to use the scientific world as an example of IP not being used. And how this is obviously a good thing. What they forget to comment on quite frequently is were exactly the money comes from for the scientists to work. What is actually funny is that it is becoming more common place for scientist to start imposing IP on their ideas because they need to generate more revenue then they are getting to continue with R&D. So generally I do not side with the idea primarily on seeing no model that offers insight as to where money comes from for R&D that is not government related. I mean seriously who out there is going to take all the risk for the slightest chance of reward?

 

[Conza88]

We're not ready for our discussion. However, I'm more than willing to continue dialog with user.

YOU'RE not ready. Don't be using the collectivist "we".

Conza you're going to have to wait till I'm done reading the books you want me to to get into this fully with you. I mean I have no facts from you. You give me no direct answer and you only cite books, which means I have to take sometime to fully understand your point of view.

Mate, what is so hard to understand? IP is mercantilistic. It is a government intervention in the market. Just like the rest of government interventions, it's socialistic. It contends that it needs to interfere because of market failure. That's essentially it. I've given you my positions, tons of times. IP is not actually "property". It holds growth, innovation and prosperity. Businesses USE it to IMPEDE PROGRESS AND INNOVATION, that use it to STIFLE COMPETITION.

The VERY reason we are all here today is because Leonard Read disregarded copyright. Leonard Read's Open-Source Vision by Jeffrey A. Tucker

What the fck do you want a direct answer on? First you've got to impose a question! You did before and I answered, now you're giving me some bullshit about you don't want to enter into the discussion.

My point of view is crystal fcken clear, and I don't understand how someone with a brain is unable to realise that. You are FOR an Intellectual Monopoly imposed by the government and state. I am for NO intellectual monopoly imposed by the state. I am for a FREE market. You are for statism to protect something that is going under the guise of 'property' when it really ain't.

Ok, you want facts? Then?

We are at a prohibition-style moment with regard to IP, just as with liquor in the 1920s. The war on the banned thing isn't working. Those in power face the choice of stepping it up even further and thereby imposing a militarized state in place of anything resembling freedom, or they can admit that the current configuration of law has no future and bring some rationality to the question. Other societies have indeed crushed innovation with this very impulse.

Do you know why we celebrate Columbus Day instead of Cheng Ho Day? Cheng Ho was a great Chinese explorer who, in the early 15th century, took his fleets to Africa and the Middle East, but he was forced to stop when the elites in the home country began to feel threatened by his discoveries. The Chinese government won the war on exploration, and became static and inward. You can win a war on progress but the gains over the long term are few.

Is change possible? Of course. It was thought in the middle ages that most all products required monopoly production. The salt producer would enter into an agreement with the ruler. The ruler would promise a monopoly in exchange for a share of the revenue. It was thought that this would guarantee access to a valuable commodity. How can anyone make a buck without a guarantee that his hard work would be compensated?

Well, it took time but eventually people realized that competition and markets actually do provide, as implausible as it may seem. As the centuries moved on, markets became ever freer, and we no longer believe that the king must confer a special status on any producer. They still do it, of course, but mostly for open reasons of political patronage.

And yet in this one area of "intellectual property," all the old mercantilist myths survive. People still believe that a state grant of monopoly privilege is necessary for the market to work. The myth has now been crushed with this book. So now the laws can be beaten back and they are being beaten back in the age of digital media.

The Mercantilism of Our Time

Can we imagine a world without drug patents? No need to dream. In the sweep of history, patents like we have today are essentially a postwar phenomenon, and prior to that, the industry developed faster in countries without patents than those with them. One way to show that is to examine 19th century chemical production. They tell the story of the French patent on coloring dyes granted to the La Fuchsine company, a patent that pretty well destroyed all development in France while the absence of patent in Germany, Switzerland, and Britain led to massive innovation and the beginnings of the modern industry. The US was very behind here due to its strong patents, and even in the First World War the U.S. had to import dyes from Germany in violation of the British blockade. This was how DuPont got its start.

In the last centuries, there have been pockets of pharm-patent freedom. Before 1978, it was Italy where a thriving industry existed for a century in the absence of patents. It only accounts for the discovery of 10% of the new compounds between 1961 and 1980. Foreign companies poured into Italy to imitate and develop. But this shut down after 1978 when Italy introduced patents under pressure from foreign multinationals. India then took the position of the free market country, and its industry became a huge player in the generic drug production market, until India too was forced into the WTO agreement and shut down its dynamic market.

The whole world of pharmaceuticals is now engulfed in an incredible patent thicket, and people praise all the innovation taking place but rarely ask the question how much prior innovation really owes to the patent or how much innovation we might experience or how low the prices would be in absence of the patent.

Boldrin and Levine dare to ask the question about where the innovations of highest social value over the centuries have come from. They looked through medical journals and found several surveys. What were the medical milestones most significant in history? The list: penicillin, X-rays, tissue culture, anesthetic, chlorpromazine, public sanitation, germ theory, evidence-based medicine, vaccines, the Pill, computers, oral rehydration therapy, DNS structure, monoclonal antibody technology, and the discovery of the health risks of smoking.

Only two of those were patented or were due to some previous patent or brought about with a patent incentive.

A separate list of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century was put together by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. It is striking that not a single one involved patents at any level. Several people wrote in to complain that aspirin, Helicobacter pylori, and Medline were not on the list. None owe anything to patents.

Do Patents Save Our Lives?

It is because of patent-based historiography that people believe that the Wright Brothers invented the airplane, when in fact they made only a tiny contribution of combining wing warping with a rudder. It was Sir George Cayley in Britain and Otto Lilienthal of Germany who did the bulk of the work of inventing the airplane. But it was the Wright Brothers who applied for the patent and quickly used it against Glenn Curtiss who improved wing warping with movable control surfaces.

So it was with the radio, which is conventionally attributed to Guglielmo Marconi, the Nobel Prize winner in 1909. What about the contribution of Oliver Lodge in the UK or the forgotten genius Nikola Tesla or the Russian Aleksander Popov or the British Naval engineer Henry B. Jackson?

All Marconi did was ground the antenna, and also manage to win the patent wars thanks to the deep pockets of fellow aristocrat and partner Andrew Carnegie. Fifty years after the patent was granted, the Supreme Court conceded that it was unjustly given but by then, the other claimants were dead! (Marconi was consistent at least: he was a big supporter of fascism in Italy.)

Then there is the famous myth about Alexander Bell that displaced knowledge of the real inventor of the telephone, Antonio Meucci. But Meucci couldn't afford the fee to file the patent. This oversight was fixed in a 2002 declaration by the U.S. Congress but just a bit too late.

They find that the countries with no copyright legislation (German territories in particular) had more composers per capita than countries like England. And in England in particular, the 1750 law had the effect of bringing the entire composition industry to a grinding halt. And later, when copyright was imposed on Italy and France, it led to a diminution of composer effort.

The Hoax of Invention History

Screw it, I'll just leave it at that for now.

To point out you just called me a socialist because I'm advocating a government to impose a monopoly. At the same time you are showing me a stacked deck the could only have a level playing fied with government assistance. And this is the one hope I have to find in my reading so I can say hey you got something, but I haven't read anything of the such. If you think temporary monopolies are a bad thing, I can't wait to see what the permant ones that develop from the stacked deck you'd like to see.

Stacked deck, level playing field? Wtf are you talking about? Please expand on this in detail, so we can get to the crux of your failures.

You think it's market failure correct? And the government needs to intefere to benefit others correct? Rightio, I think I have the solution articles and will paste them below.

You give me no evidence of your statement to be fact with an example. Just books. So you'll just have to wait. Hopefully, the books will do you justice. I'm not done.

Did. Have before and have done so again. What chapter are you up to? You can just as easily read the condense live blogging from Jeffery Tucker.

Scan the articles, pick out where your ignorance is and alleviate it.

 

[user]

Then I would take it that you see it as a less government type of move. My problem with this is that a lot of IP arguments like to use the scientific world as an example of IP not being used. And how this is obviously a good thing. What they forget to comment on quite frequently is were exactly the money comes from for the scientists to work. What is actually funny is that it is becoming more common place for scientist to start imposing IP on their ideas because they need to generate more revenue then they are getting to continue with R&D. So generally I do not side with the idea primarily on seeing no model that offers insight as to where money comes from for R&D that is not government related. I mean seriously who out there is going to take all the risk for the slightest chance of reward?

As a general rule a lot more wealth would be generated in a free market. Costs for almost everything, including R&D, would become lower.

On the specific issue of IP, I do think there are ways to simulate the perceived advantages of IP without violating rights.

 

[user]

One of Conza's quotes talks about the pharmaceutical industry. I want to add that the state's IP laws have probably helped the medical industrial complex cause a lot of harm to a lot of people.

 

[Conza88]

Ahh and see here is wher you are ignorant.

You somehow believe that Mozart simply came out of the womb and wrote 'Flute Concerto No. 2 In D Major – K. 314'

Yet it's not that simple. What he did was from the fruits of his labour. How an idea is not a prouct of ones labour is beyond me, but obviously you think that, and I'm not quite sure how that differers from any other type of work.

Human Action you dim wit. Say I discover something that is a priori, you can intellectually deduce it. You discover something like Pythagoras theorem, you then put a copyright, trademark, patent, whatever on that formula. You there by ban anyone from using it in engineering etc. You OWN it, it was your idea, or discovery!?!? Are you that fken retarded? C'mon now...

The guy who invented the wheel, he should be allowed to get a patent on it?! That is your position if you are consistent. If you want to remain insane.

He created the tune, he put the notes in that order etc. If he owned the copyright on it, people would have to pay him royalties etc. The fact that you KNOW who he is, is because he DIDN'T get a copyright on it. Or it was allowed to be shared freely.

The difference is this.

One side of your coin supports those who go out and build something physical and reward them. But for someone who spent the same time educating themselves on how to do something for the first time you give no credit for. The efforts that person made have no value to you. So why would the other? It's rather confusing.

FAIL. You do get credit for it. The market gives them value, i.e subjective value. It's only confusing if you're a fken idiot. Apologies to all those still confused.

Look, on this issue I don't consider myself as a better converter than people like Jeffery Tucker etc.

Back to Basics on Property and Competition

Does Innovation Require Property in Ideas?

IP: It's a Market Failure Argument


Mozart?

Thus does chapter eight of Against Intellectual Monopoly discuss all the existing literature that makes the case – on purpose or inadvertently – against patents. It is packed with empirical detail, but in particular I'm intrigued at their review of the history of musical composition in England and Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.

They find that the countries with no copyright legislation (German territories in particular) had more composers per capita than countries like England. And in England in particular, the 1750 law had the effect of bringing the entire composition industry to a grinding halt. And later, when copyright was imposed on Italy and France, it led to a diminution of composer effort.

This demonstration is intriguing beyond most music historians can possibly imagine. It solves a long-running mystery as how it came to be that the most musically educated population in the world, one with a massive history of compositional genius, would suddenly fail to participate in the progress that defined the age of Mozart and Beethoven. These historians just haven't known where to look for clues.

This chapter makes me sad for all the great innovators whose names are not in the history books, and even sadder for all of us who have been denied great innovations because some fool managed to make it to the patent office first only to use that privilege to kill his competition the next day. Far from encouraging innovation, patent and copyright have managed to kill off so many wonderful works of art and technologies that it boggles the mind. In order to understand this, you have to look beyond the patent records. You have to train yourself to look at the unseen costs of government regulation.

 

[Conza88]

One of Conza's quotes talks about the pharmaceutical industry. I want to add that the state's IP laws have probably helped the medical industrial complex cause a lot of harm to a lot of people.

And a lot of people have died because of them. Free trade (Managed trade) agreement, US and Australia. Medical Industrial complex couldn't have our far cheaper drugs enter the US market, they'd get destroyed.

Further more all those hyper priced goods because of the imposed monopoly... cheaper drugs are not able to be made, because of LACK OF COMPETITION.

100,000's of people in Africa who can't afford the life saving drugs they otherwise would be able to if there was competition.

Are you indirectly supporting the deaths of all those people Dman?

I'm afraid you are...

 

[Conza88]

IP: It's a Market Failure Argument​

In the hundreds of emails I've received over the issue of intellectual property, the number one most common objection to doing without goes like this. We can't subject the matters to free market competition. Some innovations are too easy to copy. Just one look or listen and the producer's idea is taken from. Then another company that had nothing to do with bearing the costs of innovation will be able to reap the rewards. We have to have a period of monopoly if only to inspire people to innovate and bring things to market.

Now, consider first what a central-planning apparatus this entails. A vibrant and enterprising economy will consist of hundreds if not millions of innovations per day. Our work lives, no matter what field we are in, are all about doing things better, bringing better products to the world, stepping forward into a future in which ever better stuff is ever more affordable. That requires unrelenting innovation.

If you are to establish a government office to keep tabs on this activity, that alone is going to require massive bureaucracy. If the bureaucracy is charged with granting monopolies for all these things, the business of enterprise is going to find itself in an amazing tangle. If we find that society works at all, it is precisely due to the absence of such tangles.

Consider also what the above critic presumes about how markets work in a world without intellectual monopolies. Consumers all sit around wanting something and wanting to pay for it. It could be a new song or a cool painting or something as simple as a q-tip. Entrepreneurs all over the country know that consumers want these things but they refuse to bring them to market for fear of being copied by the next guy. As a result, everyone just sits around doing nothing.

Is this really a realistic scenario? All experience suggests that in a vibrant economy, entrepreneurs go looking for unmet demands. This is what they live for. IP is not necessary to bring about this result, else there would not have been any economic growth in the entire world until recent years when IP began to its march to ubiquity.

All these arguments really come to down to yet another market failure argument, the idea that unless the government comes to the rescue, market players will just sit around confused while the economy goes down the drain.

All market failure arguments have the appearance of plausibility about them. Let's say you have a poorly managed apartment unit with a porchlight that is out. Everyone would benefit from having the bulb changed. But if one person benefits, so does everyone. All dwellers enjoy the light and only one pays. That's not going to work, is it? No one would act. Except that at some point, someone comes along and befuddles the failure theorists by changing the lightbulb.

So it is with markets and innovation. It is just a plain fact that many products come to us every day that are not patented. Look at a Kleenex, I mean, a facial tissue. Any paper manufacturer can make one. The Kleenex company was first to make the big time, and it has stayed on top through relentless innovation in design. So we have fancy boxes of every shape and size, tissues with oil in them, tissues with smells, and various colors and things. The company is still on top.

Boldrin and Levine give the example of TravelPro, the suitcase with wheels. Every company can replicate it. But TravelPro stays on top through new design and marketing.

Everyone has to marvel at how Arm and Hammer stays on top of the baking soda market. Talk about easy to replicate. And yet the company practically has a market monopoly, and has held it for many decades. The innovation here too is relentless: toothpaste, deodorant, cleaning products, you name it.

You can try this at home. Think of any company that has an open-source product that continues to make money and stay up top: Tupperware, Red Hat, Band Aid, Firefox, Tylenol, Bayer, Hershey. It is a long list, nearly infinite.

The competition is fierce. How do they deal with it? The model is always the same. Get there first. Stay on top through marketing. Count on brand loyalty. Innovate. Explain your superiority. Never rest on your laurels. Move forward and watch the competition carefully.

It is interesting because another market failure argument posits even that there is a reverse problem than the one used to defend IP. It suggests that the market has a "path dependence" problem, that once people get stuck on one technology or brand name, they have too high a hump to get over in order to move to one that is otherwise obviously superior.

Both can't be true.

The defenses of IP share a trait in common with all claims that the free market can't work. Hayek called it a kind of constructivism. We can't imagine how a market might solve a particular problem so we conclude that the market must fail in this instance. It's good to look outside the window and observe how the market solves the problem every day in ways we don't expect.

There are a thousand possibilities for how producers deal with being copied even in digital media. If we open the market up to competition, we will see more innovation in book publishing and movie making, as ever more goodies are piled on the consumer to earn loyalty and a range of options are made available. Consumers win, competitive producers win, and all without government privilege. What's not to like?