KOL458 | Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights (APEE Guatemala 2025)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 458. The meat of this talk is only about 15 minutes, if you skip the first couple minutes of setup and the Q&A at the end. See also Self-Ownership, Natural Rights, Estoppel (CEES Guatemala 2025) GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL458), recorded on April 7, 2025, at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala City, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers a 15-minute panel presentation titled “Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights,” arguing that intellectual property (IP) laws, particularly patents and copyrights, are state-enforced monopolies that violate property rights and hinder innovation (0:00-7:00). Drawing on his forthcoming book Copy This Book and article “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” Kinsella traces IP’s origins to mercantilist privileges, critiques its economic harms like monopoly pricing in pharmaceuticals, and dismisses natural rights and utilitarian arguments for IP as flawed or empirically unsupported, including defamation law as a form of IP (7:01-15:00). He advocates for IP’s complete abolition to foster a free market of ideas, emphasizing its conflict with free speech and competition (15:01-22:20). Kinsella engages with audience questions, addressing the feasibility of abolishing IP in the digital age, where technologies like 3D printing and encryption could bypass enforcement, and critiques IP’s distortion of AI development (22:21-27:01). He counters objections about justice for creators and corporate wealth creation, arguing that market mechanisms like reputation suffice and IP’s monopolies harm competition, reinforcing his libertarian stance (27:02-30:05). The Q&A, cut short due to time constraints, highlights tensions with pro-IP views, including natural rights arguments. Kinsella concludes by comparing his anti-IP stance to an oncologist fighting cancer, urging the audience to “make IP history” and directing them to c4sif.org for resources, delivering a concise yet provocative critique (30:06-30:05). This episode is a compelling addition to Kinsella’s anti-IP scholarship, ideal for exploring libertarian perspectives on IP. Youtube Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below. As mentioned in Speaking at APEE IP Panel in Guatemala, today (April 6, 2025) I spoke on a panel at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala. The theme of this year's meeting was “The Economic History of State and Market Institutions,” April 6-8, 2025, Guatemala City, Guatemala (program; other info). My panel was Panel 50. [1.E.06] “Intellectual Property: Old Problems and New Developments,” Monday, April 7, 2025, 3:50 pm-5:05 pm, Breakout06. Organizer: Monica Rio Nevado de Zelaya, Universidad Francisco Marroquín; Chair: Ramón Parellada, Universidad Francisco Marroquín. My full panel: Intellectual Property: A Randian Approach Warren Orbaugh, Universidad Francisco Marroquín Non-Traditional Trademarks Cristina Umaña, Universidad Francisco Marroquín Copyright versus Innovation in the Market for Recorded Music Julio Cole,Universidad Francisco Marroquín Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights N. Stephan Kinsella, Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom The immediately preceding panel was also on IP, which I attended: 36. [1.D.06] [General] Intellectual Property and Information Technology Monday | 2:30 pm-3:45 pm | 06. Cafetal II Organizer: Lawrence H. White, George Mason University Chair: Osmel Brito-Bigott, Datanalitica Technological Innovation and Service Business Models: Impacts on Private Property Institutions Osmel Brito-Bigott, Datanalitica; and Laura Marie Carrasco Vasquez, Pontificia Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra Five Arguments for Intellectual Property Adam Moore, University of Washington Ideas Are Not Property: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutions and Innovation Lucca Tanzillo Dos Santos, Florida Atlantic University I recorded my 15 minute presentation on my phone as well as the Q&A which mostly was aimed at me. One gentleman was not happy with my remarks and my Adam Moore, a panelist on the previous panel, and I had pretty opposite views, but many others liked my perspective and expressed this to me. I thoroughly enjoyed attending the APEE meeting, if only for one full day. https://youtu.be/B4TrV44K9b4 My notes are below, as well the Grok Detailed Summary and the Youtube transcript. Grok Detailed Summary Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks The summary is based on the provided YouTube transcript for KOL458, a 30-minute panel session at the APEE 49th Meeting, including Stephan Kinsella’s 15-minute presentation and Q&A. The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (7, 8, 8, and 7 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the presentation or discussion. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing Kinsella’s arguments and Q&A interactions. The final block is slightly shorter due to the abrupt session end, but all key content is covered. The post-panel note (30:06-30:39) from another speaker is excluded from Kinsella’s content but noted for context. 0:00-7:00 (Introduction and Overview of IP’s Harms, ~7 minutes) Description: Kinsella opens by introducing himself as a retired patent attorney from Houston, referencing his forthcoming book Copy This Book and article “The Problem with Intellectual Property” (0:03-1:02). He outlines his 30-year career prosecuting patents for companies like Intel and GE, while opposing IP as a libertarian, arguing that all forms—patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and defamation—should be abolished for impeding innovation and violating property rights (1:03-3:05). He ranks patents as the most harmful, followed by copyrights, defamation, trademarks, and trade secrets, citing their role in creating monopolies, censoring speech, threatening internet freedom, and enabling corporate bullying by entities like Disney, Hollywood, and Big Pharma (3:06-5:12). He mocks absurd pro-IP arguments, such as claims that Einstein needed a patent office for relativity or that copyrights prevented Charles Dickens’ death, and critiques patent lawyers and congressmen for ignoring IP’s role in high drug prices (5:13-7:00). Key Themes: Introduction of Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and career context (0:03-1:02). Assertion that all IP forms, including defamation, harm innovation, competition, and free speech (1:03-3:05). Critique of absurd pro-IP arguments and corporate interests, like Big Pharma’s monopoly pricing (5:13-7:00). Summary: Kinsella introduces his anti-IP perspective, framing patents and copyrights as the most damaging state monopolies, mocking irrational pro-IP arguments, and highlighting their economic and cultural harms. 7:01-15:00 (Historical Origins and Natural Rights Critique, ~8 minutes) Description: Kinsella traces IP’s origins, explaining that copyrights emerged from church and crown censorship via the Stationers’ Company and the 1710 Statute of Anne, transitioning to author rights as publishers became gatekeepers until Amazon’s self-publishing disrupted this (7:01-7:35). Patents stemmed from royal letters patent, formalized by the 1623 Statute of Monopolies and the U.S. Constitution’s IP clause in 1787, driven by founders’ self-interest as authors and inventors (7:36-8:16). He notes the 19th-century free market backlash against IP as protectionist, halted by the 1873 Long Depression, which entrenched patents globally (8:17-9:15). Kinsella critiques the natural rights argument for IP, rooted in Lockean creationism, arguing that Locke’s labor theory is flawed; property rights come from first use or contract, not creation, using examples like a worker not owning factory cars (9:16-12:02). He labels IP as non-consensual negative easements that take property rights, asserting it was historically a utilitarian expedient, not a natural right, contrary to claims by Adam Mossoff (12:03-15:00). Key Themes: Copyright’s censorship origins and patent’s royal privilege roots (7:01-8:16). 19th-century anti-IP backlash, halted by the Long Depression (8:17-9:15). Critique of Lockean creationism, clarifying creation is not a property right source (9:16-15:00). Summary: Kinsella details IP’s mercantilist origins and debunks the natural rights argument, arguing that IP’s creation-based claims violate libertarian property rights by imposing non-consensual restrictions. 15:01-23:00 (Utilitarian Argument, Empirical Failures, and Call for Abolition, ~8 minutes) Description: Kinsella critiques the utilitarian argument for IP, based on the founders’ hunch that patents and copyrights stimulate innovation, noting their lack of econometric evidence in 1787 (15:01-16:02). He cites studies from 1958 (Fritz Machlup) to 2017 (Heidi Williams), including Boldrin and Levine’s Against Intellectual Monopoly (2013), showing no clear evidence that IP increases innovation, with some concluding it reduces it, costing billions annually (16:03-20:03). He references a panelist’s paper showing music output persists despite falling revenues, supporting IP’s lack of necessity (20:04-21:08). Kinsella concludes his main presentation, urging the abolition of all IP forms for distorting innovation, creating monopoly prices, censoring speech, and harming humanity, comparing his anti-IP stance to an oncologist fighting cancer and suggesting we “make IP history” like MD Anderson’s slogan, humorously noting potential trademark issues (21:09-22:20). He begins the Q&A, addressing IP’s future in the digital age (22:21-23:00). Key Themes: Critique of utilitarian argument,