PDA

View Full Version : Intellectual Property: Ron Paul on IP, and is it a hot topic in the US?




aSwedishSupporter
12-17-2011, 10:35 AM
I never heard Ron Paul, or any other candidate, mention intellectual property rights. Other than someone maybe complaining about Chinese copies. But business news are reporting about the gigantic legal processes between Apple, Samsung, Google et cetera. The existence of even the largest companies seem to depend on this.

Is IP a non-issue for politics in the US?
And what is Ron Paul's point of view if any?

Austrian economists are against IP flat out. Ideas cannot be property because there's no scarcity in copying them (a process also called "learning").

pth
12-20-2011, 02:09 AM
I never heard Ron Paul, or any other candidate, mention intellectual property rights. Other than someone maybe complaining about Chinese copies. But business news are reporting about the gigantic legal processes between Apple, Samsung, Google et cetera. The existence of even the largest companies seem to depend on this.

Is IP a non-issue for politics in the US?
And what is Ron Paul's point of view if any?

Austrian economists are against IP flat out. Ideas cannot be property because there's no scarcity in copying them (a process also called "learning").


I'm not aware of any specific position statements on intellectual property per se, but given his position on property rights, we can most likely extrapolate that his opinion doesn't change depending on what type of property we're talking about.


** The following is just me discussing why I feel we need to have strong property law, skip if you don't care. **

I personally don't care what Austrians think about it. They don't have nearly as much to lose as we do by tearing down IP laws. Our livelihood as a nation depends on those laws and treaties.

Frankly, strong intellectual property law is one of the things I look for in a candidate. The top two exports of the US are Entertainment and Travel. Our airlines are all going bankrupt, so what's left? Movies, software, music, books, magazines... If your family made a living farming, would you support a candidate that wanted to make all plants public property? No, you'd want to make sure you received fair compensation for your time, effort, and materials that you put into growing those plants. The same goes for software companies, movie/music producers, book publishers, inventors, and so on. Who would spend millions of dollars and/or years of man-hours to develop new medications, new software, write a novel, or invent a better replacement heart valve, if they wouldn't see a dime in return because that new innovation was public domain? Devaluing our nation's prime export is self-defeating.

It is precisely because we have such strong patent and copyright laws in this nation that we have developed the spirit of innovation that other nations revere. In a way, that's the only competitive advantage we have. We certainly can't compete on cost. The American standard and cost of living is so much higher than many other nations and we just can't match their low labor costs. We cannot compete on the global market in manufacturing or raw materials supply. In the global market, what America has to offer is ideas. Along with all the movies, music, software, and books, that includes patent-able new designs for machines and processes. If we fail to protect those ideas and work fiercely for international recognition of intellectual property rights, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Foreigners send their kids to our universities not because they can learn calculus better... they send them here to try to learn that entrepreneurial spirit. They send them here to try to glean a little of that drive for innovation. A big reason we have those personal characteristics that allow us to remain competitive on the global markets is because of our strong IP laws.

Furthermore, just like your household, if we as a nation import more than we export, the rest of the world ends up with more and more of our wealth. That means decreasing standard of living for Americans and increased standard of living for whoever we're buying from. Why on earth would we decide as a nation to support laws that effectively cut off our biggest income stream? So we'd be importing the same and exporting a whole lot less. That would be one nasty trade deficit and the result is we as a nation get progressively poorer.

Dissolving IP laws would do more harm to our economy than ObamaCare, the Fed, and failed mortgage derivatives combined! Filling up my iPod for free or getting a free copy of Photoshop is just not worth the impact it would have in the long run.

Is it a non-issue for US politics? No... I don't hear politicians debating it. Should Americans understand the importance of IP laws and fight against any action that dilutes them? You bet!

gregb
12-20-2011, 02:17 AM
Your whole post is a masterpiece of satire, the only criticism I have is that the opening part that I quote below should have come at the very end. As it is I knew that it was a satire piece from the very start.


I personally don't care what Austrians think about it. They don't have nearly as much to lose as we do by tearing down IP laws. Our livelihood as a nation depends on those laws and treaties.

<edit>Great first Post!!!</edit>

RickyJ
12-20-2011, 02:19 AM
Ideas cannot be property because there's no scarcity in copying them (a process also called "learning").

They can't be property cause more than one person can have the same or similar idea without ever knowing about it from the others. That doesn't mean someone has a right to pirate software, books, movies, music ect... cause they don't. People do have a right to make money off of their IP work just like anyone else does from their work. No one is forcing anyone to buy it, also no one is forcing anyone to pirate it.

pth
12-20-2011, 02:23 AM
Glad you caught that Greg. :)

gregb
12-20-2011, 02:35 AM
I was wishing I hadn't been so mean, at the least a person interested in it needs to have some place to start and I didn't provide any links. However, it occurs to me that someone may at some time be in the mindset you portrayed in your essay above and out of curiosity and the need to know more watch the video below, it is a decent place to start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY

pth
12-20-2011, 02:44 AM
Here's another talk at TED:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity .html (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity .html)

ZanZibar
12-20-2011, 09:16 AM
Search for SOPA here on the Fourms. Ron made a statement about it.

mczerone
12-20-2011, 09:34 AM
I'm not aware of any specific position statements on intellectual property per se, but given his position on property rights, we can most likely extrapolate that his opinion doesn't change depending on what type of property we're talking about.


** The following is just me discussing why I feel we need to have strong property law, skip if you don't care. **

I personally don't care what Austrians think about it. They don't have nearly as much to lose as we do by tearing down IP laws. Our livelihood as a nation depends on those laws and treaties.

Frankly, strong intellectual property law is one of the things I look for in a candidate. The top two exports of the US are Entertainment and Travel. Our airlines are all going bankrupt, so what's left? Movies, software, music, books, magazines... If your family made a living farming, would you support a candidate that wanted to make all plants public property? No, you'd want to make sure you received fair compensation for your time, effort, and materials that you put into growing those plants. The same goes for software companies, movie/music producers, book publishers, inventors, and so on. Who would spend millions of dollars and/or years of man-hours to develop new medications, new software, write a novel, or invent a better replacement heart valve, if they wouldn't see a dime in return because that new innovation was public domain? Devaluing our nation's prime export is self-defeating.

It is precisely because we have such strong patent and copyright laws in this nation that we have developed the spirit of innovation that other nations revere. In a way, that's the only competitive advantage we have. We certainly can't compete on cost. The American standard and cost of living is so much higher than many other nations and we just can't match their low labor costs. We cannot compete on the global market in manufacturing or raw materials supply. In the global market, what America has to offer is ideas. Along with all the movies, music, software, and books, that includes patent-able new designs for machines and processes. If we fail to protect those ideas and work fiercely for international recognition of intellectual property rights, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Foreigners send their kids to our universities not because they can learn calculus better... they send them here to try to learn that entrepreneurial spirit. They send them here to try to glean a little of that drive for innovation. A big reason we have those personal characteristics that allow us to remain competitive on the global markets is because of our strong IP laws.

Furthermore, just like your household, if we as a nation import more than we export, the rest of the world ends up with more and more of our wealth. That means decreasing standard of living for Americans and increased standard of living for whoever we're buying from. Why on earth would we decide as a nation to support laws that effectively cut off our biggest income stream? So we'd be importing the same and exporting a whole lot less. That would be one nasty trade deficit and the result is we as a nation get progressively poorer.

Dissolving IP laws would do more harm to our economy than ObamaCare, the Fed, and failed mortgage derivatives combined! Filling up my iPod for free or getting a free copy of Photoshop is just not worth the impact it would have in the long run.

Is it a non-issue for US politics? No... I don't hear politicians debating it. Should Americans understand the importance of IP laws and fight against any action that dilutes them? You bet!

What if I told you that current research into social systems show that markets that gave no IP create more and have a higher standard of living?

http://blog.mises.org/18812/andrew-torrance-patents-and-the-regress-of-useful-arts/

Steve-in-NY
12-20-2011, 09:50 AM
Paul and Bachmann came out against SOPA.
http://informationleak.net/index.php?p=news&id=54449

citation links at bottom.