I have been watching the conversation regarding IP, given great life via the Wenzel - Kinsella debate. I have made my thoughts on this topic known previously; the issue to me is about enforcement.
Let’ say I develop some fabulous new product, using some features and techniques of my own formulation. However, I do not have the capability to bring the product to market – I lack the technical, or production, or marketing skills. I contract to have another bring the product to market. Part of my contract stipulates limits on the sharing of my formula.
Can Coca-Cola not prohibit its bottlers and employees from sharing certain aspects of the product design – by private contractual (not governmental) means? If not, why not?
I do not speak of the practicality of enforcement. I ask: What is wrong with such a contract?
I posted the following at EPJ (in reply to a statement by the infamous “unknown”):
"Whether you support the state enforcement or the anarchist enforcement it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we agree on whether we should spend our efforts enforcing IP. To this I stand with Kinsela and think that we should not."
What's with this "we" and "our" business? Feel free to not spend YOUR time on whatever you don't want to spend it on. Who are you to decide what I and another party spend OUR time on?
As I have suggested elsewhere, enforcement, for me, is the only issue. The rest of this is all noise to me.
Despite the potential futility of private and contractual means of enforcement regarding IP in many cases, under what libertarian theory is it valid to outlaw through force such agreements? Is there a non-aggressive means to disallow two individuals from contracting regarding IP? Please, advance a possibility! What violation of NAP is caused to a third party if I and another party decide on such a contract?
More central planning by so-called libertarians.... What is so scary about free markets?
Please, someone offer an answer!