Why Kinsella is wrong.

Economics Political Theory
41

I hope you will agree that I am not jerk, insecure, or dishonest enough to ever make arguments from authority. I argue without IP and lawyer jargon where possible, and use my experience and expertise only to help me select the right issues to tackle and to accuaretly present the current legal system that we criticize. In fact i despiste attempts to lord one’s credentials over others. It’s a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. In fact you see this more often among the proIP types–e..g the lawyers who pretend to have special insights into normative aspects of IP just because they are paid to exploit the system.

I think you mean “moot”.

Then if you are not, we don’t care. MOve along.

42

I did quote him from his article on the main page. I don’t think the quote was taken out of context and it is on that which I have based my critique. I have read some of his other work and he is consistently wrong on this point. i don’t think it is requirement that I have read the complete works of every person I have a discussion with.

Since people are using contracts liek this already it is a given that they have already met the market place test.

Does Kinsella keep you on a leash or does he let you roam around free?

43

Yes, thank you, I am a product of the public school system.

Happy to move along if you will stop saying that for IP protection to work it requires all third parties to be bound to the contract. It clearly does not.

44

I didn;t bother to read the entire thread, but could you give me an executive summary of your argument?

45

This is not a free market. Those contracts only built within the confines of a state monopoly on IP. Show me a region where those contracts exist are enforced, but there is no state IP monopoly (say, on the books, but not well enforced, like perhaps China or some other SE Asian nation).

You’re on thin ice with the personal comments.

46

Try reading the first post.

47

The NDA contracts right now that exist. These as Kinsella pointed out are not binding to third parties right now and yet are effective in preventing the dissemination of information.

So there you…asked and answered.

As far as personal comments go…I see you can dish it out but can’t take it. Not surprising coming from you.

48

Are under the state monopoly on law paradigm. They are constructed in a legal system that imposes limitations, preconditions and is subsidized by third parties.

There is no objective standard of effectiveness. Their effectiveness is entirely subjective.

Whatever. Just clean it up.

49

If they prevent information from being disseminated then that would be effective. Why don’t you tell us why it’s impossible for NDA’s to prevent dissemination of information in a non-state environment?

As far as insuinating that you are Kinsella’s little attack dog, that seemed pretty mild and pretty funny. It must have hit too close to home though for your delicate sensibilities. Next time I will be sure to offer you a handkerchief first.

50

Why would a stateless society require to prevent the dissemination of information?

Why would it be profitable to prevent the transmission of information, if there is no possible IP?

If there is IP, could you really call a society in which utilizes IP, “stateless”?

What other than coercion would achieve the “prevention” of information being memetically transmitted?

Not even coercing every single individual would prevent information from being transmitted, & information itself cannot truly be destroyed, so what happens to it?

Would you require commandeering the Internet in light of this “noble” goal of “protecting” people from themselves, in case they use inormation in the “wrong way”?

Does open-source, the free software movement, etc. just magically dissapear in your “non-state environment”?

We already have a coercive state institution bent on preventing the transmission of information, trade thereof, unless it’s on their own terms (intellectual property), & look at what a bang-up job it’s been doing.

Perhaps you should study a little about information theory & information transmission before making sweeping statements about information itself being required to be “restrained” in a stateless environment.

Perhaps you should remember the problems of artificial scarcity (of which DRM, IP etc. consistently enforce upon nebulous ideas & various other products) that your call for regulation of information would bring forth, let alone the conflict with basic principles of something resembling libertarianism and/or anarchism (either of which I assume when you say “non-state environment”)

If you are saying some equivalent of the ACTA is going to be required in your ideal “non-state environment”, how does this differentiate your ideal from statism?

The more questions one asks of Max’s position, the less it seems to make sense.

MaxComedy strikes again.

Anyone who disagrees with you, & agrees with another, is not an attack dog. Your personal politics with anyone who disagrees with you and/or questions your logic continues to make you a parody on this forum.

51

But they have to only disseminate info to those people they want to. I can prevent information from being disseminated by not sharing. That doesn’t serve my commercial ends. You keep forgetting that in a market, it takes two parties agreeing voluntarily, in order to make an exchange or agree to a contract. Why would party A agree to an NDA that was so restrictive, that they could only use the idea in complete isolation (effectively swearing themselves to absolute secrecy) lest some third party observe such information, applied or otherwise? Why, under your obviously punitive NDA, would anyone agree to such a burden?

The burden of proof is on you, to prove that the value of information is greater than the consequences of being exposed to it.

And that’s not even touching on the issue of how one proves that the NDA was violated, and seeking restitution for such.

The burden of proof is on you, for making a positive assertion. It has always been on you. Remember Max, you’re the one claiming 100% success with NDAs, partial success isn’t a proof that NDAs work by any means.

This is not personal, but ultimately, it comes down to two things. Limitations on our knowledge, and different conceptions of what a stateless society will entail. I’m not sure you understand how significant the role of the state is currently in IP and contract, and how much potential there is for a wildly different paradigm to emerge without a centralized monopoly authority.

Drop the attitude and move on with the debate. I’m not going to remind you again.

As far as Kinsella, I had referenced his experience and material earlier, because you’re woefully lacking in understanding of the current paradigm in IP. Copyright and patent for example, are two different animals. And patents, which I would assume you are discussing here, are used by some firms now as a defense mechanism against other firms suing them. They use patents as defensive weapons, not necessarily to maintain monopoly over a proprietary formula. If they are not using patent to maintain monopoly now, how likely would it be that they will use it in the future, where the patent “holder” must bear 100% of the costs of enforcement, and thus, build his cost of enforcement into his exchange? And how many people are willing to accept not just the liability of such a contract, but the higher cost of enforcing that contract? There is a point, at which the cost exceeds the utility of the idea, and we are in an age, where competition drives down costs through innovation. If your cure for cancer is too expensive or onerous to own, someone else will solve the problem for less. And not just in $$ figures, but in the cost (restriction, tradeoff) in your contracts. In fact, as Walter Block discussed at ASC 2009, if you have a monopoly in a free market, you have a disincentive to have high prices, as you may invite competitors and ruin your 100% market share.

Is it possible? Yes, it is possible someone will execute one of your NDAs in a free market. It is possible like winning the lottery is possible. I think it is unlikely that NDAs will replace patent as it stands now, and the system will carry on in the same manner it does today, just sans state.

Do I know that for sure? Only as much as anyone knows what is for sure in an evolved free market system. Which is to say, not at all. To think otherwise, would be a claim to perfect knowledge.

I’m pretty much done with this. Your threads typically run on for pages of pages of repeating the same incomplete arguments and talking past your opposites, and my time is too precious for that. If you add something new and substantive, leave me a comment on my user profile page and I will reply.

52

Why is the Coke formula a secret, why is the recipe for KFC a secret? Why do companies have trade secrets? Trade secrets aren’t protected by IP laws. Undoubtedly those companies have NDA agreements with the few people that know that information and are effectively keeping that information from their competition.

Why does every website offer to not sell your personal information to somebody else? Some people like to try and keep some things private. Has nothing to do with the state.

Where did I bring up any of this nonsense that you are attribtuting to me?

Please show me where I said this.

Again, where did I say information should be restrained? I have only pointed out the facts, information is being effectively restrained right now, voluntarily without the state.

You either need to start taking drugs or stop taking them because virtually your entire post is made up nonsense responses to things that I have not said.

Thank you for playing.

53

It depends on what the commercial interest is, for example if you want to be a supplier for KFC you might have to agree not to share information about their process for creating their formula. Since you would want that contract to make a big pile of money it would definitely serve your commercial interests to agree to not share information. Any type of research or manufacturing firm might require its suppliers or employees to not share information and it WOULD be in their commercial interests ie. if they want a job, to agree.

Translation…i don’t agree with you or Kinsella.

Where have I mentioned copyright or patents specifically? These are state terms for information. IP is just information, that is all it is. You keep introducing the current state system when we are discussing a system the state is not involved in.

The price you charge is not related to whether or not you want to keep the information restricted. KFC is very price competitive with other comparable restaurants and yet they keep the formula secret. Restricting information does not have to mean higher prices. Very nice, I have not beaten down Kinsella, Block and you in the same thread. The trifecta of exposing Austrian mythology.

Not only is it possible, they are doing it right now wihtout the state’s help. So your theory is what is happening now without state intervention will stop when there is no state intervention…did you take the red or the blue pill this morning?

We are in an envolved free-market system right now so take a look around this is pretty much how we can expect things.

Great, another victory for Lord Maximus. Thank you for playing.

54

WTF does NDAs have to do with intellectual property?

55

False.

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm

Economic Espionage Act

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1839.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1832.html

They are also covered in Canada.

56

I would prefer tangential; they are questions that come to mind when you essentially hint, vauge as usual, at some sort of nebulous IP existing in a non-state environment (I’m assuming this is a stateless society). The implications of such led me to wonder where that lead, which is what my post was mostly about.

If you say the implications are not representative of your position, how about actually defining your position, or re-defining it if you have already?

57

Completely wrong; we do not currently exist in a free-market system. How many times has this been disproved in these forums? A million?

There is no absolute place on earth that would fit the criteria required (no state, no regulation, etc.).

Please don’t tell others not to do drugs when you fully believe in this incorrect and/or apologetic nonsense.

58

Absolutely it is. Secrecy is a condition of sale. I mean, c’mon Max, this is contracts 101.

Ceteris paribus, if I can buy fried chicken with a NDA, or without, which would I buy? If I can open a restaurant with a NDA or without, which would it be?

Remember, your NDA is a liability for the party making promises to gain access to the secret. Otherwise it is meaningless. The NDA diminishes utility for the purchaser…

Ohhhh Kaaaaay

All you have done is shown you don’t understand basic economics or contract.

59

Of course we live in a true anarchy environment. Too many anarchists like yourself are confused as to what that means. You probably think an anarchy environment is one free of corecion which is an impossibility.

In “anarchy” there will be coercion, so it is no different than the current environment, you need to measure anarchy in degrees not in absolute states. For example, we could say there is more anarchy in Somalia and less anarchy in China. That is anarchy in the good sense of the word. What we can not say is that in one place there is anarchy and in another place there is not.

60

It is possible depending on the price of keeping information secret that it may effect the price, that is true. However, if the value of keeping the secret is greater than the cost then it makes sense for people to do this. The cost of keeping the Coke formula secret is not a meaningful factor in the price of a can of Coke.

This is the point of the NDA, you can’t buy KFC chicken without the NDA and you know that people want to buy KFC chicken so you sign the deal.