I don’t hold any trademarks, and everyone around here knows the difference between my posts and yours.
Homogeneity is related to a lack of a precision, not a real, physical phenomenon.
Right, there is only good fried chicken, and people will distinguish between the store on the right, and the store on the left if there are any significant difference in the product or service.
This is a non-problem to the consumer.
AWESOME. Competition.
Again, a non-problem for consumers. Consumers benefit from competition. Producers, not so much unless they are particularly dynamic, passionate and principled.
Let’s test this premise.
Both these claims are assertions. You haven’t substantiated either.
If the market finds value in this, it will be done privately, and people will subscribe to services, free or paid, which help them make decisions with their consumption. Unless you think we need a regulatory monopoly which can use aggressive force in order to create such a mechanism.
I don’t think Kinsella would have any issue with private firms tracking trademarks and pointing out manufacturers masquerading as other brands. We don’t need a state for that.
I personally don’t see a problem with what you just described. If I can make the exact same thing as the guy next door can make why is it a problem if I try to compete with him? Even if I did, I would want to do something different in order to attract customers away from him. If I make the exact same store across the street that will just result in both of us getting half the customers, there is no financial gain for me to do that. Instead I may setup a KFC in an area that currently doesn’t have a KFC, and why is this a problem?
You are making the assumption here that without IP no one will innovate so let’s try to focus on this since I think this is where our core disagreement lies. First off, there are trade secrets. Currently in order to get a patent you have to openly share what you are patenting. This means that if I want to patent “Pepsi” I have to share with the world exactly what makes up Pepsi. For this reason I have no incentive to protect the secrets of how to reproduce Pepsi which is why you don’t see any kind of trade secrets in the current world. However, if companies didn’t have to share everything about how they make their product I think they would protect their trade secrets very carefully. This likely means automating a lot of your processes so that as few humans as possible actually know all of the components and, if possible, have some components that are entirely automated.
Besides trade secrets, I think you are over estimating the cost of R&D. In the software industry we can already see that innovation doesn’t need IP to happen. There are plenty of open source projects out there that innovate and come up with unique solutions before big companies do. Often big companies will just use the open source solution to solve their problems because it is very cost effective. Also, just because I don’t have a patent doesn’t mean I still can’t benefit from first to market. If I figure out a new soda recipe I can produce millions of bottles of it and have them on shelves before other companies even get a chance to taste it (I am aware this ignores corporate espionage, but we can talk about that separately if you like). Once they see it hit the market they will begin the process of copying it via reverse engineering or paying off enough of my workers until they have the recipe. So while they will eventually figure it out and replicate it, I have moved a lot of product at a premium and they still have to sink some time and costs into reproducing it (since I don’t give out the recipe freely). Once they come out with a matching product then we compete on who can produce it for less and therefor sell it for less.
I don’t think that would be considered anarcho-capitalism. Considering thats exactly what we do now, and we’re not anarcho-capitalists.
I think an anarcho-capitalist society would establish that you are only entitled to what you earn or what you are given. There is to be no stimulations or contracts. Not that anybody would be around to enforce them anyway. You’d only be able to enforce the terms to the extent you, physically, can enforce them. (Or you can get others to help you enforce I should say) It’s sort of like mob rule. But you require the heavy cooperation of everybody. People to adhere to your contract, people to enforce your contract if they won’t adhere to it, people to enforce those who go rogue enforcing your contract deals… It’d just be easier to not have a contract in the first place, and in this regard, anarcho-capitalism gets a lot of respect from me that it could avoid my sworn enemy, the moderators.
When I say moderators, I don’t mean this forum’s moderators specifically. I mean as a general. The broad term for anyone who relies on coercive deal or no deal contracts. People want to say morality is not black and white, but then expect me and you to abide by black and white terms. At least they’re black and white on OUR END, getting F’d in the A end. But not to the person who wrote up the contract. Oh no! To them, it’s just a big blob of gray they can enforce however they want… Who enforces their responsibility to uphold their end of the deal and make their terms as clear and unabusive as possible? It’s not enough to say you made things abudantly clear. If there is room for any foul play by having subjective terms, (like an internet forum) then the entire thing is invalid. Because how can someone agree to something intangible and ridiculous? They can’t. Basically we’re dealing with a bunch of Darth Vaders. “I have altered the terms of negotiation… pray that I do not alter them further!” I don’t have to answer to a scumbag like that, and I imagine no person who takes anarcho-capitalism seriously would expect me too.
So because it takes enforcers, to enforce enforcers, to enforce people. I think it would be counter productive to the whole ideology. However, I cannot speak for everybody. I’m sure there’s some out there who would more then justify contracts and binding agreements that could somehow be enforced and still constitute “anarchy”. But honestly, it defeats the whole purpose. Anarchy means without governance. Even if it’s a voluntary form, it’s still governance. The fact that you either have to do without something, or sign away certain rights and have to make sacrifices you otherwise wouldn’t have to give up, is a sure sign you are distancing yourself from anarchy. I basically see anarcho-capitalism as Amish people who use money rather then primitive barter trade. They believe humans will naturally integrate and respect each other’s “land” that they “own” without the need for contract or enforcement. That as long as people have a mutual need for one another’s services, they’ll get along.
Yes, branding and distinguishing your product from others are very important, and is just a natural part of bringing a product/service to market. This is NOT what IP Law protects. For example, Trademark does not just cover brand names, off the top of my head I can just think of the “trademark dilution” power, in which you can own a slogan, or name plus anything even close to it:
Even if you do only want IP protection limited to brand names, the market already sorts out branding issues without any laws (through profit and loss), and those customers who get defrauded are already covered under fraud laws. Thus no need for even your limited IP Laws.
I think that libertystudent and Micah71381 covered the rest of your post sufficiently, so no need for me to restate in my own words what was already said.
Is there any reason this forum won’t allow me to sign up with the exact same name, avatar and details as you? There are probably several good reasons, all of which would also be applicable to my examples.
If there aren’t, this means the person who can produce the exact same service as the lowest cost always wins out. This seems like awesome competition in theory, but in practice it means those who already hold the most resources will always outcompete those with less, and those with less at the outset of their business will never be able to stake out much success. And this in turn means a lack of innovation and probably worse barriers to entry than currently exist. Personally, I don’t think this would work in practice.
The whole of anarcho-capitalism is, as of yet, an unsubstantiated assertion, so I’m not too concerned about making hypothetical judgements here. But overall I think you are letting ideology get in the way of what actually produces a highly effective, highly functional and ultimately free market, which is, in my opinion, a little bit of IP.
I have no problem with private courts arbitrating IP issues, but Kinsella, it would seem, does. He thinks IP itself is suspect, regardless of legalese, public or private.
Sorry… running out of time! I’ll reply to any responses and to micah and texans as soon as I can!
Non sequitur. The design of this software has more to do with unique entries in a database for purposes of fetching discrete info than it does with naming fried chicken joints.
These are just assertions again. You’re basically saying that if two people produce the same good, but one at a cheaper price, then they need different names because … ? And I think you’re insinuating a fallacy that people who are late comers to a market can’t innovate if they don’t have enough capital. The truth is, innovation is a process of the mind and success is a product of action. Give an idiot $1 million and he is still an idiot. Money doesn’t make money, the application of money makes money.
Tu quoque (fallacy), and a failure to understand what Ancap is. Ancap is simply a value preference.
Actually, I’m not employing any ideology. I am using reason.
To have a free market, you need property rights. To have any IP (why have a little if it is so good, lets have as much as possible) you need to violate property rights to support a higher form of [sic] property, “ideas”. Therefore, IP cannot exist in a free market.
If you want to talk to Stephan, you should write to him directly. However, IP is indeed suspect for the very reason I laid out above. I don’t own my CDs if you claim I can’t burn certain things on them. You own them, because you can control their use. IP is contradictory to property rights, without which a free market cannot be achieved.
I can’t speak for the others but personally, it’s not the IP itself I have a problem with so much as it being forced by threat of violence that bothers me. If Walmart, for example, had a policy of only selling items produced by the original inventor it doesn’t mean I would suddenly stop shopping at Walmart out of spite for the concept of IP. However, if Target could offer a product of similar quality as Walmart for a lower price I would be inclined to investigate shopping there instead. Of course, I still may shop at Walmart for other items or perhaps due to convenience because of location.
TL;DR:
IP is fine. Enforcement of IP through threat of violence is not.
The issue with IP is that it is assigning property rights to something which is not property. This causes conflicts. The notion of property rights are to prevent conflicts and to provide confidence for purposes of exchange.
So if you’re a libertarian, which many of us believe necessitates support of property rights, then it is rational to reject IP as being completely arbitrary and contrived.
You don’t like violence I presume because it hurts people, it violates their bodies or property. Well, IP is the same thing. It’s a justification for violence and monopoly, nothing more.
As libertystudent mentioned, this is just competition. I want to enter the nail business (nails for construction). There are already hundreds of firms in place already making nails, how will I ever sell my goods?
Now, I think you mean to talk of the specific example of one company “stealing” and using the name of another company on their own, there are three problems I can think of:
They would have the incentive to set their product apart (special labels, change of logo, change bottle shape)
You would have the incentive to set your product apart (if you are having a hard time with this, imagine that you begin to surpass original Pepsi and people like yours better, would you not want to label yours slightly differently so instead of the customers buying the original, they are sure to buy yours!!)
Every decision has an oppurtunity cost. What if Pepsi comes out with a new flavor, or what if you decide you want your company to make a new flavor? If you decide to make a certain flavor in your factories in a given hour, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make another flavor at the same exact time. Copying Pepsi’s moves at every step of the way is impossible, thus you guys will have different structures of production.
Lack of innovation, look at all the innovation it would drive, there would be even more competition!!! And lowering barriers to entry is always a good thing.
IP Law are monopoly grants from the monopoly called government, there is nothing free market about them. Have you read Against Intellectual Monopoly yet? In social sciences it is impossible to have controlled experiments, but they do a great job of looking at how sectors of the economy did work before/after IP Law, in different countries (not all countries implemented draconian IP at the same times), in situations when Inellectual Monopolies were suspended (in the case of American airplanes during WWI):
At the time it was an ingedient in Coca-Cola, cocaine was both legal and common in a variety of drinks. Cocaine was not secretly included in Coca-Cola – it was advertised. In fact, Pemberton worried that they would not be able to legally call the drink “Coca-Cola” if they stopped including coca leaves or kola nuts. For most of the 1890’s, up until 1903, Coca-Cola contained only minicsule amounts of cocaine, and in 1903, it was removed from the recipe altogether. The decision to do so had absolutely nothing to do with pressure from the FDA, as the FDA was created three years later.
@liberty student - I think things would get very confusing very quickly if everyone here was able to log in as you! That would be a crazy situation for the “consumers” of this site, who’d start to drop off pretty quickly. Why wouldn’t the same thing happen on the free market?
If a company is large enough to produce all of its competitor’s products at a lower cost that is a monopoly (a monopoly of capital) by any other name (assuming those products are EXACTLY the same, branding and all, which would be possible in your IP-less world). Not only governments have a monopoly on monopolies. For some corporations this might be great news. For those who want to compete, not so much.
I agree with Micah above. It’s not what’s on the inside of the can I’m concerned about… it’s what’s on the outside of it. To the extent that a company is able to protect its brand name I think IP would be a necessary component of a free market. This small amount of IP (and I don’t think a small amount of something necessarily means you have to have all of it: a belief in punishing crime to a certain extent does not necessarily imply a belief in the death sentence, does it?) would be integral to truly free competition I think.
Coming back to the way things are now: if a lack of IP is a good thing, why are countries who have little to no respect for IP so poor? I think it’s because in order to compete successfully, you have to have some legal recourse to a least the most basic form of brand protection.
It probably would, but this isn’t an aggressive government enforcing it but rather individual companies. This means that some may enforce it (like these forums) while others may not. The market will decide which business (or forums) method is ideal and in such a scenario there can still be some niche businesses (forums) that don’t allow for trademarking.
If a company retains a monopoly because they are serving their customers so well that no one can compete there isn’t a problem. Yes, it’s a monopoly but monopoly by definition isn’t bad. It’s when a monopoly arises out of aggressive intervention (government sponsored monopolies) that it becomes a problem. Smaller companies can fill in the gaps where the big company is failing. Chances are that a big corporation (i.e.: Walmart) can’t make everyone happy at the same time so other companies can provide for those customers that aren’t happy with Walmart.
Just to be clear, I do not have as big of a problem with government sponsored trademarking as I do with government sponsored IP. However, I would still prefer the market dictates branding (which I think it would do given the opportunity).
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because a country has no IP laws and it is poor does not mean that the link is causational. This is the problem with modern popular economics, there are too many variables in the real world to tease out so you can’t apply traditional scientific method to it as people continually try to do (and continually fail at). Austrian economists understand this and therefor don’t try to plan economies. We make reasonable guesses by watching how individuals act within an economy and try to extrapolate from there but we don’t presume to know cause and effect at a macroeconomic scale.
You’re confusing real property with IP. People could call themselves LS but they couldn’t log into my account. Just as two stores side by side can have the same name, and sell the same fried chicken, but the owners of the store cannot enter the other and operate it.
You are misusing the term monopoly. There is no such thing as a monopoly of capital.
Just a bunch of assertions. The first sentence is obviously wrong, since your values are not the values of everyone else. That is why we have markets, so people can choose according to their own values.
As Micah said, you’re making a logical error here.
It is still not possible to produce everything at a lower cost. To simplify this, just stop thinking about the competitor copying your brand.
“a company is large enough to produce all of its competitor’s products at a lower cost that is a monopoly”
That is not a monopoly, that just means they can produce these given goods cheaper than you.
Now, it is impossible for one company to take over every market, let alone copy every single product/company in the given market. There is an upper limit on how much this one company can produce. Each company wants to set themselves apart from every other. Lets say Company M = evil monopoly trying to take over the microwave industry.
Company A sets themselves apart, they have microwaves with the spinning carousel in the middle.
Company B sets themselves apart, they have microwaves which are more powerful.
Company C sets themselves apart, they have microwaves which have a better button system.
Company D sets themselves apart, they have microwaves which does everything automatically for you and even uses robot arms to feed you after it heats the food.
Company M decides to copy all 4 companies. Each microwave requires completely different machinery and parts in order to set themselves apart. Company M must then buy all of these goods, modify their machinery in order to design each of these pieces. Now even if Company M can copy all of these, AND make it cheaper than them, imagine then Companies E-Z entering the market. It would be impossible for Company M to copy all 25 of these companies, they would have to make choices on WHICH ones to copy.
Do I make microwaves like Company A, B, and C? D seems too expensive and I don’t think anybody would buy it.
Now bring in branding, if evil Company M is so big and powerful, why would they even copy the brand name of A, B, and C? They would call their designs company M microwaves, and outcompete them. Why waste more money trying to copy 25 different labels (or whatever the companies use to set theirs apart), when I could create one type of Company M labels (thus saving me money).
Instead of copying microwave A, B, C exactly, why would I not want to combine ideas from A, B, and C and make a much better Company M microwave?
There is every incentive to set yourself apart from your competitors in the market, NOT to copy them exactly.
In the social sciences it is impossible to have controlled experiments, so you cannot know how it would have been otherwise. I would recommend reading Against Intellectual Monopoly (which I believe I linked to earlier in the topic).
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one Texans. I think it is reasonable for a single company to be good at everything, it is just unlikely and not a problem if they are. A single company can both make microwaves with high power as well as microwaves with better buttons as well as microwaves with everything. Making different kinds of microwaves isn’t as cost efficient as making the same one, but they can still have a lot of their business scale well while producing a wide range of microwaves.
I do agree with you though that most companies (especially the large ones) are going to be interested in setting themselves apart. I also think that resellers are going to want to have branded products because customers want to know what they are buying. The place you will see brand leeching I imagine are at street vendors and small shops where people know that they are likely buying immitation.
Microwaves were just a quick example I thought of off the top of my head… perhaps not the best of examples, but you are free to substitute any good and the logic is the same.
Even then, you are dealing with completely different consumers. I think I remember Jeffrey Tucker (or maybe Kinsella?) covering this idea really well in one of his fashion articles. I will have to look around for the article.
Edit: Here is what I found really quickly which is relevant to that topic… I will continue looking.
And here Kinsella’s comments on this article shed more light onto the situation: