1-54 of about 54 matches for site:c4sif.org explicitly
https://c4sif.org/2010/01/shugharts-defense-of-ip/
For example, Professor Shughart writes: Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution explicitly delegates to Congress
https://c4sif.org/2010/01/shugharts-defense-of-ip/
For example, Professor Shughart writes: Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution explicitly delegates to Congress
http://c4sif.org/2014/01/cato-vs-public-citizen-on-ip-and-the-tpp/
on other important issues. As an example, a few years back, several Cato scholars explicitly opposed free trade in
https://c4sif.org/2011/07/intellectual-property-advocates-hate-competi...
to Overcome the Public Goods Problem , IP proponents support these monopoly privileges on explicitly anticompetitive grounds. Take this
https://c4sif.org/2012/03/daily-bell-interview-stephan-kinsella-on-the...
columns in the LSU student newspaper, The Daily Reveille , from an explicitly libertarian perspective. As my
https://c4sif.org/2025/04/apee-ip-panel-guatemala/
Intellectual Property: A First Principles Debate (Federalist Society POLICYbrief) : many libertarian groups are now explicitly anti-IP or at
https://c4sif.org/2013/01/decline-to-state-in-opposition-to-the-natura...
derived from somewhere (something that Yeager claims I am trying to do though I explicitly denied this), then things
http://c4sif.org/2014/12/intellectual-property-rights-a-critical-histo...
on other important issues. As an example, a few years back, several Cato scholars explicitly opposed free trade in
https://c4sif.org/2011/04/the-four-historical-phases-of-ip-abolitionis...
page). In the latter half of the 20th century, more explicitly libertarian thinkers began to
https://c4sif.org/2020/12/amend-the-lp-platform-to-abolish-ip/
the LP to amend its Platform immediately to clearly and explicitly condemn federal patent and
https://c4sif.org/2013/10/longer-copyright-terms-stiffer-copyright-pen...
on other important issues. As an example, a few years back, several Cato scholars explicitly opposed free trade in
https://c4sif.org/2006/12/owning-thoughts-and-labor/
a straw-man argument. In fact, Mr. Kinsella has repeatedly and explicitly stated ( e. g. , in
https://c4sif.org/2013/03/kinsella-law-and-intellectual-property-in-a-...
is radical, unique, and not utilitarian. This is exactly why I set out very explicitly and clearly
https://c4sif.org/2013/03/kinsella-law-and-intellectual-property-in-a-...
is radical, unique, and not utilitarian. This is exactly why I set out very explicitly and clearly
https://c4sif.org/2010/09/costs-of-the-patent-system-revisited-mises-2...
field, suggesting broad acceptance. Opposition and Abolition Advocacy Quantifying opposition is trickier. No data explicitly states how many patent
https://c4sif.org/2013/10/longer-copyright-terms-stiffer-copyright-pen...
on other important issues. As an example, a few years back, several Cato scholars explicitly opposed free trade in
https://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
hamper free speech , though that is not its main focus or framing . … While Claeys does not explicitly frame his argument as
https://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
hamper free speech , though that is not its main focus or framing . … While Claeys does not explicitly frame his argument as
https://c4sif.org/2022/01/the-death-throes-of-pro-ip-libertarianism-mi...
of previous scholars, it was more systematic and comprehensive, and more explicitly integrated with Austrian-libertarian
https://c4sif.org/2013/07/more-defenses-of-ip-by-the-federalist-societ...
and conservatives. As far as I can tell the material listed contains little explicitly libertarian analysis, other than
https://c4sif.org/2016/02/independent-institute-on-the-benefits-of-int...
on. First: how can one comment on a supposedly contested libertarian normative issue, while explicitly refraining from engaging in
https://c4sif.org/2022/01/the-death-throes-of-pro-ip-libertarianism-mi...
of previous scholars, it was more systematic and comprehensive, and more explicitly integrated with Austrian-libertarian
https://c4sif.org/2010/12/atlas-hefts-the-sequel/
and intellectual property rights, holds enormous clout over the Institute’s actions.” One Objectivist explicitly writes: Those who so
https://c4sif.org/2011/06/mises-on-ip-bylund/
an entrepreneur.” And he continues to make the argument more explicitly, and discusses
https://c4sif.org/2013/03/kinsella-law-and-intellectual-property-in-a-...
is radical, unique, and not utilitarian. This is exactly why I set out very explicitly and clearly
https://c4sif.org/2011/08/we-are-all-copyright-criminals-john-tehrania...
lawyer to claim. Stephan Kinsella August 23, 2011 at 7:24 am First, he explicitly notes it’s a
Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors (2
https://c4sif.org/2008/01/objectivist-law-prof-mossoff-on-copyright/
the origin of all values.” Yes, in my main post above, I explicitly said: At one point
https://c4sif.org/2007/04/epson-ink-patents/
DC Sasha, you again seem to attribute something to me that I explicitly denied. You write: “ You
Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors (2
https://c4sif.org/2008/01/objectivist-law-prof-mossoff-on-copyright/
the origin of all values.” Yes, in my main post above, I explicitly said: At one point
https://c4sif.org/2007/04/epson-ink-patents/
DC Sasha, you again seem to attribute something to me that I explicitly denied. You write: “ You
https://c4sif.org/2011/04/the-four-historical-phases-of-ip-abolitionis...
page). In the latter half of the 20th century, more explicitly libertarian thinkers began to
https://c4sif.org/2023/06/nineteenth-century-criticism-of-the-patent-s...
how the Netherlands industrialized during a period of time when it explicitly abolished patents — from 1869
https://c4sif.org/2011/07/intellectual-property-and-economic-developme...
and establish what the a priori categories of action are, we explicitly introduce certain contingent facts
https://c4sif.org/2011/07/price-controls-antitrust-and-patents/
use of that standard. I would say that derogation from this default rule should be explicitly spelled out. Imagine what
https://c4sif.org/2024/11/glyn-moody-on-copyright-abolition/
Culture , which is also free online and CC0! The book may not explicitly be anticopyright but the
https://c4sif.org/2012/01/stop-calling-patent-and-copyright-property-s...
In the U.S. Supreme Court case Dowling vs United States , the Supreme Court explicitly valued whether copies could
https://c4sif.org/2025/04/structural-unity-real-intellectual-property/
on par with real property. One can only hope that the Court will soon explicitly tie the intellectual
https://c4sif.org/2024/10/ip-answer-man-blockchain-authors-copyright/
support their business or hobbies. Any contractual scheme is not copyright or IP as I explain explicitly in my
https://c4sif.org/2011/07/price-controls-antitrust-and-patents/
use of that standard. I would say that derogation from this default rule should be explicitly spelled out. Imagine what
https://c4sif.org/2014/12/intellectual-property-rights-a-critical-hist...
on other important issues. As an example, a few years back, several Cato scholars explicitly opposed free trade in
Patents Kill Update: Volunteers 3D-Print Unobtainable $11,000 Valve For $1 To Keep Covid-19 Patients
https://c4sif.org/2020/03/patents-kill-update-3d-covid-valve/
a patent number”. Apparently the patentee (if it is that) didn’t “threaten” (not explicitly, anyway) and the
https://c4sif.org/2011/09/patent-fee-diversion-and-patent-reform-whini...
experienced in patent law, and have articulated my views clearly and explicitly. Of course
https://c4sif.org/2014/01/cato-vs-public-citizen-on-ip-and-the-tpp/
on other important issues. As an example, a few years back, several Cato scholars explicitly opposed free trade in
https://c4sif.org/2012/03/the-arbitrariness-of-patent-law/
Law Ass’n ( 08-964 Austin Intellectual Property Law Association.pdf ) The patent statute explicitly defines process quite broadly
https://c4sif.org/2015/07/austrian-economics-center-hayek-institute-ot...
the Austrian Economics Center and the two aforementioned Hayek Institutes) are coming out explicitly in favor
https://c4sif.org/2025/05/trumps-worst-idea-pharmaceuticals/
event, Medicare’s New Drug Price Mandate: Healthcare & Innovation Implications . Meanwhile other countries with more explicitly subsidized healthcare systems simply
Anti-IP Material Needed in the IP Section of the Federalist Society’s “Conservative & Libertarian Le
https://c4sif.org/2012/10/anti-ip-material-needed-in-the-ip-section-of...
and conservatives. As far as I can tell the material listed contains little explicitly libertarian analysis, other than
https://c4sif.org/2011/04/mossoff-why-should-business-leaders-care-abo...
the origin of all values.” Yes, in my main post above, I explicitly said: At one point
https://c4sif.org/2023/10/demented-cato-doctor-wants-to-strengthen-pat...
on par with real property. One can only hope that the Court will soon explicitly tie the intellectual
https://c4sif.org/2012/08/mossoff-patent-law-really-is-as-straightforw...
in the technical economic sense, and as I used it and explicitly defined it, means rivalrous
https://c4sif.org/2013/01/trademark-aint-so-hot-either-trademark-and-f...
Okay then, go back to the store example:”Hey, *I* didn’t ever explicitly say that the
https://c4sif.org/2025/01/intellectual-property-versus-intellectual-pr...
futile debate about semantics. Thus my first major paper is entitled “ Against Intellectual Property ,” which is explicitly opposed to IP
https://c4sif.org/2009/11/rand-on-ip-owning-values-and-rearrangement-r...
value, and thus in rights in value, and explicitly drop the connection
https://c4sif.org/2008/06/when-antitrust-and-patents-collide-rambus-v-...
use of that standard. I would say that derogation from this default rule should be explicitly spelled out. Imagine what