Patents and Progress – Loans for Stock in Austria

On August 12, 2022

Murray Rothbard rejected patents, and other writers, following and extending his views, have developed a wide array of arguments against patents in particular and intellectual property (IP) in general. Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property is the most detailed and carefully argued of these studies. Not all of those inclined in a free market direction agree with this position, though, and in this week’s article, I’d like to look at some arguments in defense of patents found in Adam Mossoff’s article “Intellectual Property,” in The Routledge Companion to Libertarianism (pp. 471–85). The article sets out very well the main arguments for and against IP; and although Mossoff is a strong proponent of IP, which he defends from the standpoint of Objectivism, the article’s aim is to explain the arguments in the controversy rather than to defend his own position.

Opponents of patents say that you can’t own an idea, and Mossoff responds that in one sense, they are right.

If IP rights literally meant people owned ideas … then thinking about a patented invention or a copyrighted book would be patent or copyright infringement. But this has never been true: IP rights protect only real-world inventions, books, movies, songs, corporate logos, and commercial secrets by preventing unauthorized copies, sales, or uses of these products or processes. (p. 474)

Here a problem arises if, like Rothbard, you hold that people acquire unowned resources by appropriating them—i.e., by being the first to use them. This is a “Lockean” view, though to avoid problems pointed out by David Hume, among others, it is perhaps better to drop John Locke’s phrase that you acquire resources by “mixing your labor” with them. In this theory, it isn’t at all clear how arriving at a new idea, and making this public through a recognized process, would give you rights over a physical object. It’s interesting to note, though, as Mossoff points out, that Locke himself accepted patents (in effect) and copyright, though he did not know the former word; but in arriving at our own position, what is of interest is the essential truth, if truth it be, of the Lockean theory rather than the ipsissima verba of its inventor. Further, as Stephan Kinsella has pointed out to me, Locke did not take copyrights and patents to be natural rights.

Mossoff would respond by rejecting Lockean theory. If, as I think we can, we attribute to him the views he ascribes to Ayn Rand, Mossoff would argue in this way:

Although Rand’s justification for property rights is often associated with Lockean or natural rights, it is distinct from it in several respects, such as her unique concept of “value” and her insight in creating and using values … Rand justified IP rights as “the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.” (p. 477)

In Rand’s usage, a “value” is not the subjective process of valuing but rather what we aim to gain or keep, and she is certainly right that it is ideas that have made possible the tremendous growth in productivity since the Industrial Revolution, greatly aiding human survival. But I think there is danger of a misstep here. “Value,” in the sense of what we aim to gain or keep, must be distinguished from the economic value or price of something, which is determined by market actors’ subjective valuations. The Austrian theory of economic value is quite compatible with Rand’s account of “value,” though I’m not sure whether Objectivists do in fact accept it. But the misstep is to assume that in acquiring resources, people come to own the economic value of what they acquire and, as a corollary, to assume that people can acquire only things that the market values. Thus, if someone is the first to appropriate some rocks that no one else wants but that he, for reasons of his own, finds worth acquiring, he is just as much their owner as someone who sees the rocks’ economic potential and because of that is the first to use them.

For this reason, the fact mentioned by Mossoff, that oil was not a valuable resource “until humans invented steam engines and generators requiring lubricating oil and combustion engines requiring fuel” (p. 481) is no doubt true, but not on point, as this does not provide grounds for acquiring the physical resource of oil. If someone had been the first to use some deposit of oil, even though oil had no market value, why wouldn’t have acquired it as his property?

Rand would disagree, as she holds that the

ultimate source of property … remains value-creating productivity … which is what is recognized and secured by IP rights … what makes something a value depends on the question to whom and for what. For instance, a desert is a disvalue to a farmer who instead requires fecund soil. Yet a desert may be of tremendous value to individuals inventing and producing integrated circuits, which requires silicon. The value is not the (scarce) object as such, but rather the value it represents to the rational mind, who is producing and using it in human life—the fundamental moral justification of all property. (p. 481)

All of this, to reiterate, seems to me to confuse why we want physical things and the basis on which we acquire them.

You might object that it’s unfair to deny inventors IP rights. Their ideas contribute more to the production process than anything else. Once an invention becomes known, why shouldn’t the inventor have the right to the economic gain people get from its use, at least for a period of time?

One answer to this is to appeal to and extend a point Rand herself makes in arguing for limited rather than perpetual patents. As Mossoff explains her view,

unlike with static material values, such as an automobile, dynamic claims to production of values do not require continued actions to sustain or keep them as values. Without having to maintain the value, such as taking one’s automobile to the mechanic to repair it, IP rights could over time become used by people doing nothing to sustain the value, but simply using the IP rights parasitically to leech from the value creation by others in creating new values (property) (p. 477)

Rand argues, in my view correctly, that holders of IP rights who do not contribute to the production process act parasitically: they say, “You must pay me for the use of the idea to which I hold a patent, even though the idea is public knowledge once disclosed.” Extending the argument, isn’t anyone who demands a fee for using his idea acting parasitically? If the inventor of an idea uses it in a production process, he gains the economic value of using it, and he secures extra gains if he’s the first user of the idea, but why do ideas entitle inventors to more than this?

Mossoff has with great skill compressed a large amount of material into his article, and I have been able to comment on only a few of his arguments. I do not think, though, that the other material requires revising my view that patents are unwarranted, though readers must judge for themselves. Patents lack a basis in natural rights; to the contrary, they may be, as Wendy McElroy has suggested, a patent absurdity.1


1. I am grateful to Stephan Kinsella, whose knowledge of this topic far exceeds my own, for helpful comments.


Global Securities Lenders specializes in custom liquidity solutions for those seeking to leverage concentrated market positions quickly, conveniently, and confidentially. We provide flexible terms and low interest rates specifically designed with your goals in mind. GSL recently announced our goal of working in Austria to provide securities lending to companies and high net worth individuals.

Securities-based lending, or a stock loan, is the practice of using market investments such as stocks, ETF’s, warrants, bonds, or real estate investment trusts as collateral for a loan. If you own free-trading, non-restricted stock on a major world exchange that trades at a minimum volume of $30,000 USD daily, you can qualify for a non-recourse, collateralized stock loan from one of our valued lenders in record time! Get an instant quote to see if you qualify.

Original Article: Read More

Original Source: Mises Wire


Let's Start a Conversation

Instant Quote

Please fill out your information to see if you are pre-qualified.

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

Global Securities Lenders, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

Global Securities Lenders, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with Global Securities Lenders, LLC’s internal lending policies. Global Securities Lenders, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Contact GSL

Please use our Instant Quote form to see if you're pre-qualified for a non-recourse stock loan, or if you have any questions or feedback, please email, call or chat with us.

+1 (954) 648-5454
2805 E Oakland Park Blvd #307, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 USA
Open 24 hours a day / 7 days a week / 365 days a year

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is Securities-Based Lending?

Securities-based lending, or a stock loan, is the practice of using market investments such as stocks, ETF’s, warrants, bonds, or real estate investment trusts as collateral for a loan.

How much money can I get for my securities?

Borrow up to 70% of the value of your pledged investments giving you the capital you need to expand your business, purchase real estate, or tackle a costly project.

What happens if my securities lose value?

With a non-recourse stock loan, you can walk away from your securities at any time and keep the loan money with no negative credit consequences even if the investments lose value.

Is my information safe with GSL?

We pride ourselves on outstanding service and make client confidentiality our top priority. You can always be absolutely certain your information is safe with us.

How long does it take for the disbursement of funds?

Most of the transactions we process take less than 7 days from application to the disbursement of funds giving you cash quickly when you need it most.

What credit score do I need to qualify?

There are no credit checks or personal guarantees necessary with our services. Your pledged securities are the only collateral required for the loan you receive.

Contact Us

Florida Office

2805 E Oakland Park Blvd #307
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308

Call Us

+1 (954) 648-5454‬

Market Coverage