Patent laws infringe on the right of others real property. A patent states that one person is the owner of an idea, and anybody who tries to produce something using that idea or reproduce that idea itself using his own real property is infringing on the rights of the patent holder. We have a God given right to own real property, but our ideas are not real property and ultimately belong to God and God alone because He is the creator of all ideas. God did not give ideas so that we may abuse the rights of others but instead to share and enhance the lives of others. If we abolish patents it will not destroy the economy, instead large companies will no longer be able to abuse the rights of the little guy and there will be more innovations in the marketplace because of competition among those with the same ideas.


Laws supporting Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are evil

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, July 30th, 2004

(revised) May 29, 2007

(see original draft at silverstockreport#44 )



In July of 2004, I wrote an article, "Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are evil."  It should have been titled, "Laws supporting Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are evil".  (minor distinction). 

The most interesting reader response quoted an old essay that should be refuted.  A man wrote to me:

Jason:  Below is an article (advocating) patents & copyrights that should interest you.  It is written by the 20th century's greatest defender of Capitalism. (who wrote "Capitalism: The unknown ideal")

My reply:  "Ayn Rand is also without a solid moral compass.  [Not Christian.]  But thank you for the article."
Refuting Ayn Rand's support of Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks.
by Jason Hommel

By Ayn Rand: (in italics)

--My comments to refute Ayn Rand's essay are in bold, no italics, and start with a dash like this: --.

Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind.

--First, the "base" or source of all property rights is God, not the constitution, not governments, not patents and copyrights, and not the false concept, "a man's right to the product of his mind". 

--Second, "a man's right to the product of his mind" is a justification to do evil.  Men don't have the right to whatever they think they can do; God has defined the limits and rights of men.  But even without God's specific laws, men can self-evidently see what those laws are if you know that your rights end where other people's rights begin, and that you have to treat others with love.  Here are the real issues:

(1) Is making a copy really "stealing"?  Some primitive tribes believe that if you take their picture, then you "steal" their soul.  Some believe if you make an idol or statue of an animal, that you have "stolen" some of the essence of the animal, and put it into the carving or statue.  Let me state a self-evident truth, an axiom that does not need to be proven.  Making copies does not take anything away from the thing that was copied, and thus, nothing is stolen in the process.  

(2) Can you own an idea?  Can an idea become property?  Do men have the God-given right to own the use of truths (applications), and to prevent other men from building upon and copying, using, discovering, and selling such truths?

(3) The issue is whether a man has the right to prevent other men from copying an idea and selling it.  To "prevent other men" requires the use of force to either steal or kill other men.  Done unjustly, it's murder, and a sin.  Thus, the enforcement of "patent rights" requires a violation of all real property rights. 

Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form.  The proportion of these two elements varies in different types of work.  At the lowest end of the scale, the mental effort required to perform unskilled manual labor is minimal.  At the other end, what the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind's contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

--Ayn moves the discussion from labor to ideas, saying both are work and thus, both are property.  But note the distinction.  Labor is not protected in the same way that ideas are protected through copyrights and patents.  For if labor was protected in the same way, then nobody would be allowed to use their arm the way that a bricklayer uses his arm--which would be ridiculous.  This comparison shows the difference between labor and ideas, and it shows how ridiculous patent and copyright laws are.  You see, men may independently use their arms or minds in the same way, and thus, discover the same thing!  One man cannot have a "right" to prevent another man from being able to use his mind in the same way!

--Patents actually restrict "the mind's contribution in its purest form:" the use of existing ideas!
--Furthermore, patents, copyrights, and trademarks are arbitrary.  Patents require a government employee's judgment in order to secure one.  Some may be approved, and others, not. 

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value, that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

--The heart of the matter is, as Ayn says, that patents and copyrights are all about "forbidding an unauthorized reproduction".  To forbid reproduction requires a restriction of freedom upon all the property of all other men.  It robs men of the use of their real property.  Communism is the control of all property (especially the means of production and reproduction) in the hands of the government.

--But a human creator is not harmed if another makes a copy of his bright idea.  The man making a copy does not take any physical thing from the creator.  Thus, making copies is entirely unlike theft of real tangible property.

--The novelty or usefulness, of an item generally determines whether a patent is granted.  But if patents are granted on whether they are useful, does it make sense that useful items be restricted from being reproduced and sold by other men?

--I know that people say that patents are needed to encourage and reward creativity.  But are patents needed to get men to think creatively to improve their own lives?  I think not.  I think men will naturally work, and think, and create, to improve their own lives.  I believe the creations that men can create are more than enough incentive.  Furthermore, men who innovate are generally going to appreciate their creations more than others, and will also generally be the first ones to bring their own ideas to market, and thus, innovators have a natural competitive edge in the marketplace.  In fact, competition within the marketplace will encourage the most creativity, since creativity and improvements will be required to remain competitive and to get the competitive edge. 

--But since patents discourage competition within the marketplace, patents discourage creativity.  Many men are forbidden to make use of the patents of other men.  Unless they get a license.  But if a license cannot be negotiated, then existing patents thus halt progress and further innovations.

It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. 

--Ayn writes as if there is a distinction between a discovery and an invention.  True, discoveries are not inventions.  But an invention is a discovery.  An invention is a specific application of a discovery or truth.

A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission.

--I agree that men cannot force other men to "continue to pursue falsehoods."  Thus, if a man learns how to make any invention, then he must be allowed to create the invention.  Why can a patent holder force other men to continue to pursue inefficiencies if there is a better way known?  Patent holders demand that other men not be able to apply their specific applications of discoveries.  And what is a discovery again?  A discovery is "a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known," or simply, a truth.  It is evil to forbid other men to apply and make use of truths!  And it is evil compounded to try and prevent other men from spreading such truths to other men through the marketplace.

He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it--but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature--an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

--Herein lies several assumptions which can be proven to be false. 

--First false assumption: that society would not have developed and invented the thing without the one man.  And this assumption is provably untrue.  Many inventions are created by men nearly simultaneously.  Especially those inventions that are only minor modifications of existing inventions. 

--Second false assumption:  That society would be better off if there is this copyright to protect the written words.  But books have been, and can be, written without copyright protection.  Would all books not be written if there was no copyright protection?  Of course not!  I write and hereby do declare that all are free to copy, sell, modify, and reproduce this, in any way you see fit!

The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege or favor; the government merely secures it--i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal. A man is not forced to apply for a patent or copyright; he may give his idea away, if he so chooses; but if he wishes to exercise his property right, the government will protect it, as it protects all other rights.

--Here, Ayn writes an assumption, that you have a "right" to prevent other men from copying your ideas.  Where in the Bible does it say we have the "right" to prevent men from copying our ideas?  And what is required to enforce such a "right"?  It requires the use of active force... to violate the real rights of other men to own and control their own property and privacy, and to restrict their right to access the marketplace!  It requires preventing other men from freely interacting, peaceably, with other men by buying and selling.  If you restrict a man from selling, you remove his right to re-make his property into a reproduction.  If you restrict a man from buying, you remove his right to trade away his property (gold) to make a purchase from another man, or to hire another man to make something "for his own use". 

--This "intellectual property right" is in direct contrast with, and incompatible with, all other rights, which are basically the right to be left alone, as long as you do not interfere with others.  To secure an "intellectual property right" a man, or government, is required to interfere with the rights of others.   In fact, the right to be left alone must be violated by the man who attempts to secure his patent rights.  It is impossible to have real rights not be violated by the enforcement of the false right of a patent or copyright.  Just and righteous laws cannot contradict themselves.  Only evil laws create contradictions and hypocrisy.

A patent or copyright represents the formal equivalent of registering a property deed or title.

--No, the two are not equivalent at all.  A property deed or title means someone owns a certain tract of land, and that's all.  If one man owns one section of land, he does not simultaneously gain a bit of control over all other lands held by all other men, which would be the formal equivalent of a patent or copyright.  See, a patent or copyright says that no other men can use their own property in a certain way, to print something specific, or make a certain invention.

The patent or copyright notice on a physical object represents a public statement of the conditions on which the inventor or author is willing to sell his product: for the purchaser's use, but not for commercial reproduction.

--And herein lies the evil... patents and copyrights restrict commerce and competition.  But competition in the marketplace are at the very heart and essence of capitalism, and stimulates the most innovation, and progress.  I know Ayn is supposedly the great defender of Capitalism, but I don't think Ayn really understood this unknown ideal very well. 

The right to intellectual property cannot be exercised in perpetuity. Intellectual property represents a claim, not on material objects,

--But, intellectual property does represent a claim on material objects!  Intellectual property represents a claim on all material objects that have been made into a copy!

but on the idea they embody, which means: not merely on existing wealth, but on wealth yet to be produced--a claim to payment for the inventor's or author's work. No debt can be extended into infinity.

--Why does Ayn bring up the concept of debt?  As if we are indebted to a man, an inventor, and that this debt takes the form of an agreement to "not compete" in the marketplace with him--as if society is indebted to the inventor, but not "into infinity" for an infinite length of time.  Excuse me, but I owe no debt to society's forefathers.  Fathers should leave an inheritance to their children, not debts.  One way men leave a good inheritance to their children is through making the world a better place, through inventions!  Inventions are for our benefit, not for our debt and enslavement and restriction.

--I would owe a debt if I borrowed real property, such as money.  I don't owe a debt if I copy an idea.  Again, Ayn is assuming that which must be proven... that an idea is property.  Ideas are not property.  And there is no debt when we copy an idea. 

--In the next section, Ayn recognizes that over a long time, many horrible problems would result from granting intellectual property rights, and thus, tries to justify an expiration date for intellectual property, as if that solves the problems created.  But a time limit does not solve the problem of "intellectual property rights".

Material property represents a static amount of wealth already produced.

It can be left to heirs, but it cannot remain in their effortless possession in perpetuity: the heirs can consume it or must earn its continued possession by their own productive work. The greater the value of the property, the greater the effort demanded of the heir.

In a free, competitive society, no one could long retain the ownership of a factory or of a tract of land without exercising a commensurate effort.

--But why is Ayn bothering to make the bad argument that real property requires "effort" to retain?  Ayn is trying to argue that if real property will dissipate or expire over time, then, likewise, thus patents should also expire.  But real property does not expire over time!  Gold does not expire, it remains as untarnished after 6000 years as if it were minted yesterday!   And under a gold standard, a static amount of property (gold) turns into more wealth over time. 

--And as society advances, centrally located property, such as in New York City, becomes more valuable over time.  Land in a city is only difficult to retain because there are property taxes to pay.  Now, given that whatever the government can tax, it will destroy, then perhaps government should levy a tax upon all "intellectual property" rights that it has granted!
But intellectual property cannot be consumed.  If it were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism.  It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them.

--Yes, I do believe that patent holders are "parasites," who put a "lien on the production" and progress of society, which  "ultimately paralyzes" us.  Thus, we should either tax them into non-existence, or simply stop protecting all "patent rights" altogether.

Consider what would happen if, in producing an automobile, we had to pay royalties to the descendants of all the inventors involved, starting with the inventor of the wheel and on up.  Apart from the impossibility of keeping such records, consider the accidental status of such descendants and the unreality of their unearned claims.

--Ayn argues very well against patents here.  Patents are impractical, and with the proliferation of patents, it will eventually be impossible to require industry or government to keep up-to-date with what has already been patented.  We are probably well past that point already.  Why should a business be required to search a patent database before engaging in a new commercial activity?  Why should China, for example, have to track down all patent holders in another country, or every country, to pay royalties to them?  Ridiculous!  The truths embodied in free trade, computers, and the internet, are exposing the fraudulent nature of patents and copyright.

--And this is exactly why intellectual property laws in such areas as computer programming is so terrible!  Given the rapid pace of the development of computers, it is as cumbersome today in computing and software, as if it would be if, in producing an automobile, we had to pay royalties to the inventor of the wheel! 

--Above, in Ayn's attempt to say an "inherited patent" is bad, Ayn tries to imply that any inheritance is bad.  Ayn apparently dislikes the concept of men inheriting wealth.  But men who have a right to property also have the right to spend or give their property to whomever they choose, and they have a right to leave an inheritance to their children.  So it is not the "inheritance" that makes an "inherited patent" bad.  An "inherited patent" is bad, because all patents are bad!

The inheritance of material property represents a dynamic claim on a static amount of wealth; the inheritance of intellectual property represents a static claim on a dynamic process of production.

Intellectual achievement, in fact, cannot be transferred, just as intelligence, ability or any other personal virtue cannot be transferred. 

--It is so sad to see Ayn argue that intelligence or virtues cannot be transferred.  If that is so Ayn, please stop writing.  For why bother if you do not hope to transfer part of your intelligence and virtue to your readers?  And if your readers can get these merely by reading your work, how much more should children be able to get the intelligence and virtue of their fathers! 

--Ayn's reasonings become hard to follow when one bad idea is based on another bad idea.  But why is Ayn bothering to make the bad argument that "intelligence or virtues cannot be transferred"?  Ayn is attempting to say that if intelligence or virtues "cannot be transferred" (which is false), then neither should "intellectual property" be transferred for an "excessive length of time," from generation to generation forever.  Because if "intellectual property" can be inherited in perpetuity, it creates obvious problems that expose the absurdity and problem of the entire concept of "intellectual property": such as paying royalties to the inventor of the wheel.

All that can be transferred is the material results of an achievement, in the form of actually produced wealth.  By the very nature of the right on which intellectual property is based--a man's right to the product of his mind--that right ends with him.

He cannot dispose of that which he cannot know or judge: the yet-unproduced, indirect, potential results of his achievement four generations-or four centuries-later.

It is in this issue that our somewhat collectivistic terminology might be misleading: on the expiration of a patent or copyright, the intellectual property involved does not become "public property" (though it is labeled as "in the public domain"); it ceases to exist qua property.

--That there must be an expiration date is one key reason why we could say intellectual property is not property at all. Consider the contrast to real property.  The ultimate forms of property do not have an expiration date!  Land does not vanish or expire, and neither does gold or silver!  They remain in perpetuity, and can be inherited. 

--True, other property does spoil, rot, rust, evaporate, disintegrate, or vanish.  But all other property expires of it's own natural process.  The concept of a government-granted time period that must be attached to "intellectual property" is completely man-made, and arbitrary.  But rights are not arbitrary, and do not come from man, rights come from God.  If rights were arbitrary, they could not be self-evident!

And if the invention or the book continues to be manufactured, the benefit of that former property does not go to the "public," it goes to the only rightful heirs: to the producers, to those who exercise the effort of embodying that idea in new material forms and thus keeping it alive.

Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue.

--Exactly!  The time limit as something that must be 'arbitrary'.  Where is the standard?  What would the length of time be?  Why did God not give us laws to uphold "intellectual property"?  The reason is that "intellectual property" is not the kind of property that men can own, nor is it a right given to men by God!

--Consider why God did not say that excessive interest is wrong.  Because how would you define excessive?  What would the rate be?  In fact, God said that any interest is wrong.  (Unless when an Israelite loans to a non-Israelite.)  Furthermore, low interest rates can be more harmful than high interest rates.  Low rates, where there is no gold standard, are highly inflationary!

If they were restricted to the originator's lifespan, it would destroy their value by making long-term contractual agreements impossible: if an inventor died a month after his invention were placed on the market, it could ruin the manufacturer who may have invested a fortune in its production.

--Ayn makes more assumptions that can be proven to be false.  Is it true that "long-term contractual agreements [would be] impossible"?  No.  Yes, it "could ruin the manufacturer".  Or, it might not!  Why assume that competition would ruin a business?  Competition may ruin a business, or, it may force that business to become more innovative and efficient!  Society benefits from competition because the most efficient business survives to serve society's needs. 

--The other false assumption is that the manufacturer "may have invested a fortune".  They may have, or may not have invested a fortune.  Whether investing a fortune was wise or not, depends on many factors, not just the untimely death of a creative inventor. , who may be able to keep the company current and competitive with ongoing inventions.  But it is not the job of the government to protect a bad investment, nor to protect against unforeseen risk.  Government's job is to protect real property rights, not to protect fraudulent claims and bad investments.

Under such conditions, investors would be unable to take a long-range risk;

--Again, Ayn makes one false assumption after another!  Investors MAY have increased difficulty with taking a long-range risk... but would not be UNABLE!

the more revolutionary or important an invention, the less would be its chance of finding financial backers.

--Again, not necessarily.  It is not the revolutionary nature or importance of an invention that might restrict financial backers.  It is the potential profitability, which depends on many things.  A few of which are: the cost of initial production, the potential return in the marketplace, and many other factors! 

--In fact, if patented, important inventions are less likely to be brought to the marketplace, because when a patent is granted, it means that only one man or entity has the right to produce it!  But what if the inventor is a bad businessman, a bad advertiser, is poor, cannot find financial backers, or is slow to bring the invention to society?  Why should society suffer or tolerate such poverty or incompetence of the inventor?  An invention is more likely to be brought to the marketplace, and more likely to benefit the most possible people, if all possible producers are allowed to produce it, without interference by government.  An invention is more likely to find financial backing if all of finance were allowed to produce it, and if patents did not exist!

Therefore, the law has to define a period of time which would protect the rights and interests of all those involved.

"Therefore, the law has to..."?  Based on all those provably false assumptions?  Ridiculous!  A just idea is justified by truths, not by lies and false assumptions!

In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain's Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter.

In the case of patents, the issue is much more complex. A patented invention often tends to hamper or restrict further research and development in a given area of science.

Ayn, thank you for acknowledging the inefficiency of patented inventions!

Many patents cover overlapping areas.  The difficulty lies in defining the inventor's specific rights without including more than he can properly claim, in the form of indirect consequences or yet-undiscovered implications. A lifetime patent could become an unjustifiable barrier to the development of knowledge beyond the inventor's potential power or actual achievement.

Yes, yes, yes!  It's why society would be better off if there were no patents!

The legal problem is to set a time limit which would secure for the inventor the fullest possible benefit of his invention without infringing the right of others to pursue independent research.

Yes, yes, yes!  The granting of a patent right must infringe the rights of others! 

As in many other legal issues, that time limit has to be determined by the principle of defining and protecting all the individual rights involved.

--Rights are inviolable, and do not, and cannot, contradict each other.  If inviolable rights must be violated to secure a patent, then a patent is NOT a right!  And this is not a problem that can be solved with a "time limit".  This problem proves that laws that grant patents are evil. 

--Ayn, as if somehow realizing that the entire foundation for patent rights is unjustifiable and irrational, seems to instinctively move next to try and defend the entire concept of patents by addressing (attempting to refute, but not refuting) one key objection.

As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser's work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn't.

--I agree that the principle of "first come first served" must apply in a world of limited real property.  In capitalism, property is allocated in either of two ways.  The first is "first come, first served." Second, property ownership is given to the highest bidder, which is the market creating a price.  And the one who gets to sell the property is the one who acquired it first!   But ideas are not real property because ideas are unlimited, and can be replicated without cost!  Unlimited ideas do not need to be allocated, "first come, first served", and ideas do not need to be sold to the highest bidder!  Anyone can grasp and possess a truth freely if they have open eyes, a ready mind, and an honest spirit!

--Thus, Ayn completely fails to refute the objection that two men may invent the same thing at nearly the same time!

Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition.

--But once a patent is granted, there is no more competition!  That's the entire point of patents, to remove the competition!  The entire point of the free marketplace is to create competition.  Ayn tries to appeal to competition as a high ideal to justify patents.  But if competition is a high ideal, and since patents prevent competition, then patents are not justified by the truth that competition in the marketplace is good.

Today, patents are the special target of the collectivists' attacks-directly and indirectly, through such issues as the proposed abolition of trademarks, brand names, etc.

It is not "collectivist" to attack bad laws that protect copyrights, trademarks, patents and brand names.

In communism, people cannot own property, nor "intellectual property".  But without real property, there is no real profit incentive, no competition, and no free market place.  In communist countries, they lack innovation (not because they don't allow patents) but because their marketplaces are less free than in the US, but this is an argument that validates the fact that more competition in the marketplace stimulates the greatest innovation. 

Profit incentives are created by a free marketplace, even without protection of patents, copyright or trademark law. 

I have pointed out that patents and copyrights require collectivism, and state ownership of all tangible objects, because you cannot use your paper and ink and make copies of others work, and you can't use your wood and your springs to make a patented mousetrap.  Ayn tries to defend patent laws by saying something that is exactly the opposite of the truth, by saying that those who attack patents are collectivists.  Although Ayn makes an unsupported assertion, I have shown quite clearly that patent protection requires action that are based on collectivism--the state restricting real property rights, and restricting free market competition.

While the so-called "conservatives" look at those attacks indifferently or, at times, approvingly, the collectivists seem to realize that patents are the heart and core of property rights, and that once they are destroyed, the destruction of all other rights will follow automatically, as a brief postscript.

Wow!  See, Ayn's rhetoric is what happens when a false concept is accepted as true.  Patent rights are not the ultimate right!  They are a false right, and the other rights would not be destroyed if patent rights were destroyed.  In fact, if patent rights were destroyed, other rights would be strengthened, because patent rights infringe on other, real rights!

The present state of our patent system is a nightmare. The inventors' rights are being infringed, eroded, chipped, gnawed and violated in so many ways, under cover of so many nonobjective statutes, that industrialists are beginning to rely on secrecy to protect valuable inventions which they are afraid to patent. (Consider the treatment accorded to patents under the antitrust laws, as just one example out of many.)

That industrialists are afraid to patent goes to show even more precisely why patents are evil.  One can get a competitive edge in the marketplace, through secrecy, as Ayn acknowledges.  But registering a patent is incompatible with secrecy! 

An inventor is free to keep his ideas private.  But if he brings his ideas to the marketplace, they are no longer private, and thus, no longer protected by secrecy.

Those who observe the spectacle of the progressive collapse of patents--the spectacle of mediocrity scrambling to cash-in on the achievements of genius--and who understand its implications, will understand why in the closing paragraphs of Chapter VII, Part II, of Atlas Shrugged, one of the guiltiest men is the passenger who said: "Why should Rearden be the
only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?"

-AYN RAND

I find it most interesting that there is a "progressive collapse of patents".  Especially today, perhaps 30 years after Ayn wrote the piece above.  Today, computers are eroding copyrights in music, dvd's and even in software.  Free trade with nations like China is destroying patent protection monopolies on production.  Bill Gates has put numerous software companies out of business by badly copying their products, and incorporating them into the operating system.  I think we would all have better computers if Bill Gates was allowed to at least make a good copy of his competitors' products, and if other men were allowed to compete with Bill Gate's operating system. 

As it is, the undeniable reality of truth tends to march onward, and destroy false ideas, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks.   The beauty of truth is that it spreads relentlessly, precisely because the spread of truth cannot be restricted, no matter how much government opposition.

--Jason Hommel

(It would please me enormously if other men were to take any of my remarks or written works, and refine or modify them in any way so as to make them better, more truthful, or more clear, or to give them greater market exposure.  And if they attempt to do the opposite, and slander my instead, it will likely not work.  Such is the beauty of truth.)

Note my business model.  I produce this free weekly report.  I don't worry about other men copying my report.  Who would do the continual work to update it weekly?  And if they tried, would they even have the market reach to get reader feedback as good as I get? 

It's possible that another man will one day re-produce my weekly report, and be able to reach a wider audience--especially if they attempt to spend perhaps $50,000 to $100,000 on marketing.  And if such a man succeeds, I strongly suspect that I will make even more money in the process, as even more investors will be exposed to the opportunities in silver and silver stocks.  In fact, I encourage my readers, weekly, to copy me, and to spread the word.  I will only be helped.  And such is the beauty of the business model that is founded on truth. 

There is another thing I have learned about truth, and why it is so beautiful and wonderful.  It is really easy to intellectually defend!  And when you find someone who argues in favor of something false, it is quite easy to refute their arguments and expose them as untrue.

Now, how do we put these truths to productive use?  Do we need to re-write the laws of the U.S.?  I don't think so.  I believe jury nullification will work.  See, men on trial (for making copies) have a right to a jury.   The jury has the right to judge both the merits of the case, and the validity of the laws, by simply refusing to convict.  If juries across the land are educated to the point where they will not convict men who copy patents and copyrights, then those laws become "nullified". 

Another way to end unjust laws would be to counter sue.  You could attempt to prosecute people who would infringe real property rights when they attempting to enforce the evil of patent and copyright and trademark law.  After all, people who infringe the real rights of men are nothing more than liars, thieves, and murderers, who have no justification for their evil actions.  Such evil actions end up actually creating victims (those who make the copies) who can testify against them in a court of law.

Furthermore, according to the U.S. constitution, the true victims, those who make copies, have the right to question their accusers, and in the process, they can expose the frauds behind the unjust patent, copyright, and trademark laws.

________________
I sell "intellectual information."   But I don't need to sell anything.  I have more than enough money.  I write to help others.  I make money in three ways.  The most is through capital appreciation of my own portfolio.  (IE, I don't have to work for others, but I do need to "work" to pay attention to my own investments.)  The second way I make money, is through helping other people find good investments, as I make money on finder's fees on private placements.  Third, and least of all, I make money through selling a "look at my portfolio" at silverstockreport.com.  I offer this because many people ask me for stock tips, and so, I sell it in response to that market demand.   The money I make from the sales of the "look at my portfolio" goes to pay the webmaster team that keeps silverstockreport.com running, and advertising.

Anyone who bought my information product could re-copy it, and sell it for less.  Or try to give it away to as many people as they could, by posting it on the internet.  Whether doing so would be beneficial to them, or hurtful to them, is up to them.  I don't care, I certainly wouldn't sue them, I win either way.  If more people see the "look at my portfolio" for free, and buy the stocks as a result, I make more money.  If less people see it, it helps those who paid for it to continue to acquire those stocks with less competition.  Either way, if people buy the stocks I own, the price of those stocks tend to go up, and I make money.

Because I have a market reach, I also receive a lot of tips about silver stocks.  And thus, I believe I may have invested in some of the best ones that came my way.  If you believe I may have an edge based on my work and unique position... then the best way for me to share this with you is to is tell you more precisely where I put my money.  It's not investment advice.  I offer a monthly "look at my portfolio".   I do not issue recommendations, and I don't list number of shares or the size of my portfolio, but I will show the top investments in my portfolio, by rank, updated monthly.  It includes which stocks are 9% and more of my portfolio, those between 9% and 6%, under 6%, under 3%, and under 1%.

To order: http://www.silverstockreport.com

If you have any questions about billing or order fulfillment, you need to contact my support staff at support@silverstockreport.com and not me.  I manage a large portfolio, and I don't have time to process billing requests.  I don't bill any cards, my support staff handles all of that.  The toll free telephone customer support line is:  800-370-4154.