Friday, May 29, 2009

Jeffrey Tucker Is Not Going to Like This

President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, does not appear to take the view of Jeffrey Tucker and the anti-free market extreme left on intellectual property, i.e. what you create with your mind is also mine.

As WSJ's John McKinnon puts it, " Judge Sotomayor's private-sector experience suggests she would bring a certain sympathy for protecting the rights of copyright and patent holders."

The full WSJ piece is worth reading as it suggests some logic to Sotomayor's judicial rulings, at least in the field of intellectual property.

The Sotomayor rulings that WSJ cites do not give Sotomayor much room for applying or indicating she understands my view on IP protection for all who arrive independently at a creation versus those who arrive first, but there is no indication that she has IP views beyond somewhat traditional IP protection.

1 comment:

  1. Robert Wenzel said: "the anti-free market extreme left on intellectual property"

    Gee, ya think you could load up any more inflammatory labels to describe a position which you do not hold? Perhaps it is all of those labels which cloud your point of view?

    FWIW, I think your "independent discoverer" doctrine is every bit as contrived and flawed as the "first discoverer" doctrine. In both cases an abstraction is enshrined as a "thing" to attach tangible property rights to.

    Worse still is the damage it does to society. In your world, this blog, and its host, the internet, simply would not exist.

    Even its predecessor, bulletin boards would never have came to be without the actions of the Supreme Court (I think???) deciding that Ma Bell had to let others connect to their network, dismissing their IP claims as over-reaching.

    So not only would you not have the Internet, you wouldn't even have the dial-up bbs, or that crappy ole AOL.

    You protect nothing via the chokehold of IP other than the disintegration of society known previously as the Dark Ages.

    To insist that producers would not produce without this protection racket is to misunderstand the producer, or more accurately, the willful human. In your view it seems, they would rather starve than to produce, out of fear that someone else may discover their secret, devaluing their temporary "monopoly." You are also implying that the producer values the monopoly of the idea more than the utility of the idea itself.

    Production exists to fulfill human needs. It predates all forms of "protection," having succeeded in spite of IP, not because of it.

    I'm sorry you wasted your time writing a book in defense of this golem, but really, you should reconsider the benefits of a free society, not constrained by the violence that is IP.

    Oh, and I think it is hilarious that you applied a "lefty" label to Mr. Tucker. It shows that you really don't understand the coherent ideology he presents at all. All you know is to place it in a false, polarized divide that has been pre-defined for you.

    The intellectual battle has never been the "left vs. right," but the individual vs. the collective.

    Guess what? The willful human who produces? That person is an individual. A thinking, feeling, loving person. The collective meanwhile, is none of those. It is nothing but a force, designed to control and dominate individuals.

    Which one do you really think is capable of creating a functional, harmonious society?