Boldrin on intellectual property

by Russ Roberts on May 18, 2009

in Podcast

The latest EconTalk is with Michele Boldrin. He and David Levine make a very provocative case against intellectual property in their new book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (available online here at no charge.) I find myself, to my surprise, moving very much in their direction.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

54 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 50 comments }

Adam May 18, 2009 at 1:48 pm

It doesn't surprise those of us who enjoy the enormous amount of free content you put out in written, spoken, and video-recorded form, Professor Roberts :)

John Galt May 18, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Can you summarize? I'm curious about what a persuasive argument against IP could possibly sound like.

Peter Saint-Andre May 18, 2009 at 2:22 pm

The very concept of "intellectual property" is a recent construction; prior to that, the terms "patent", "copyright", and "trademark" served just fine. For my own writings I am quite comfortable with placing them into the public domain, but I have given less thought to issues of patent and trademark than of copyright. More at http://me.stpeter.im/essays/whatiscopyright.html and http://me.stpeter.im/essays/publicdomain.html if you're curious.

Bret May 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm

I've been leaning that way for awhile given my experience with patents (I hold several) and music (I've written and produced a couple of CDs). The whole process has struck me as hugely counterproductive. I've been thinking that at least the term for both patent and copyright ought to be substantially reduced.

I'm eager to read their book.

Bret May 18, 2009 at 2:55 pm

John Galt,

Read the introduction – it provides an overview and isn't very long.

Daniel Kuehn May 18, 2009 at 3:13 pm

I recognize the good points on both sides of the intellectual property debate, and am personally agnostic on it at this point.

But I am curious – how do intellectual property rights confer monopoly priveleges any more than any other kind of property right. That's the whole POINT of property rights, isn't it? Having the exclusive right to the benefits of that property?

So you can keep patents what, 19 years? What if the Constitution nullified all contracts after 19 years? I don't think EconTalk would countenance that kind of a legal arrangement.

I'm going to listen to the talk – I'm very curious. These are just the kinds of questions that arise in my head. I would have expected Cafe Hayek to lean more in favor of a preservation of intellectual property rights, not a dismantling of them (I'd expect that sort of dirty work from someone like Joe Stiglitz!).

MnM May 18, 2009 at 4:11 pm

Is there a copyright on the book?

Martin Brock May 18, 2009 at 4:18 pm

… how do intellectual property rights confer monopoly privileges any more than any other kind of property right.

Richard Stallman, who originated the GNU public license that governs Linux and other open source software, makes the case this way.

Only one person can sit in a chair. That's not an arbitrary decree of some authority. It's more like a law of nature. Since only one person can sit in a chair but chairs are not in short supply otherwise, making chairs individual private property usefully avoids conflict over chairs. Furthermore, policing an individual's property in a chair is a fundamentally local task. To police this property, I only need to be in the vicinity of the chair.

Intellectual property is fundamentally different, because information can literally be in two places at once. It can even be in a billion places at once, and making a copy of particular information can be practically costless.

Producing information in the first place is not costless, but producing a copy is. Precisely what an author should be due for producing information in the first place is debatable, but copying information does not fundamentally impose a cost on the author. Even if copying does impose a cost, the author doesn't bear it.

I'm very skeptical of the utility of intellectual property in general. I see some utility in it, but not surprisingly, states strengthen intellectual property rights continually, and the strength of these rights is essentially arbitrary while the cost of enforcement is practically infinite.

Before the 1980s, software parents hardly existed, and neither did international patents. The first copyrights in the U.S. lasted only fourteen years. Now, copyrights last over a century, even thought the shelf life of a typical book has probably fallen. This monopoly creep is the opposite of what common sense dictates. In the eighteenth century, publishing a book and finding a market for it took much longer.

S Andrews May 18, 2009 at 4:19 pm

MnM,

That depends on the publisher; author is helpless in that regards.

Martin Brock May 18, 2009 at 4:28 pm

So you can keep patents what, 19 years? What if the Constitution nullified all contracts after 19 years?

A patent is not a contract, and Congress does have authority to nullify contracts. That's why bankruptcy law is a Federal matter.

I can imagine an intellectual property regime without a definite time limit. For example, Russ writes a book and applies for copyright protection. When he applies, he states a cost of producing the book. His copyright lasts until he's earned back ten times the cost or until he dies, whichever comes first. Why would this standard be "less proper" than a copyright with a definite duration?

S Andrews May 18, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Daniel Kuehn May 18, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Martin -
Right – I understand the argument against intellectual property, which is why I'm an agnostic rather than a staunch advocate. But that argument just seems like it would be so foreign here.

RE: "A patent is not a contract, and Congress does have authority to nullify contracts. That's why bankruptcy law is a Federal matter."

I probably didn't make that connection clear enough. A patent gives you property rights to an invention, which gives you the authority to license out the information just like you would write a contract to rent out any other piece of property that you had. Now imagine if the Constitution said you only have the right to rent out your farm equipment for the first 19 years of that farm equipment's existence. That's essentially what we're doing with patents, and needless to say that would be problematic in the case of farm equipment!

Don't get me wrong – I'm not in favor of perpetual intellectual property rights. I am just curious about why Russ is so suspicious of them. I guess what I'm saying is that if I had to guess I would have assumed that Russ would be in favor of significantly stronger intellectual property rights.

When I raise issues about the positive externalities associated with education or basic research – and provide that as a justification for public supply, that usually gets shot down very quickly. I'm just curious how intellectual property glided by, when the argument seems comparable if not exactly the same.

Daniel Kuehn May 18, 2009 at 4:56 pm

Martin -
Re: "When he applies, he states a cost of producing the book. His copyright lasts until he's earned back ten times the cost or until he dies, whichever comes first."

I see the value in a situation like that (although that seems very ripe for abuse by those with good connections!), but again – why not do that for any property? Why not say "company X owns this building until they earn back ten times what it cost to build it"? That would be ridiculous! But by the same token, why shouldn't Russ expect to keep earning revenue from his book?

Gareth May 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm

If you take away patents isn't there going to be more incentive for secrecy?

K Ackermann May 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm

But I am curious – how do intellectual property rights confer monopoly priveleges any more than any other kind of property right. That's the whole POINT of property rights, isn't it? Having the exclusive right to the benefits of that property?

Property rights allows for the ownership of a physical instance of some thing, whereas IP allows the entire notional potential to be owned.

IP does not directly produce anything. It only conveys the right to prevent the use of an idea, or to divert some amount of the gains realized from the use of an idea.

Bret May 18, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Gareth asks: "If you take away patents isn't there going to be more incentive for secrecy? "

Certainly there'll be less incentive to publish the innovations.

But it doesn't much matter, in my experience.

My main problem with patents is the non-obviousness part. I hold several patents. I had a problem to solve and developed solutions, some of which we patented. Were they obvious? I don't know, because it's such a difficult to define concept. If you weren't working on the specific problem, then you probably would not have come up with the solutions. A patent examiner wouldn't come up with them because they are not skilled enough. But if enough other people worked on the problem, I suspect that someone else probably would've come up with the same solutions eventually. So it doesn't seem like non-obviousness ever really holds.

On the flip side, I've looked at a lot of patents and I have yet to see one that I wouldn't have come up with on my own if I was working on a specific problem for which that patent was a solution.

As a result, I don't think secrecy much matters. Other people will figure out the same solutions for less cost than scanning the patent databases and licensing the IP, which is horrendously time consuming and expensive.

George Selgin May 18, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Russ: Perhaps my and John Turner's working paper, presented at a recent conference devoted to Boldrin and Levine's work and linked below, will help you to resist. It refutes the claim, made by those writers as well as many others, that James Watt's patent impeded industrial progress.

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~jlturner/StrongSteamApril2009.pdf

DAVE May 18, 2009 at 6:45 pm

All in all it seems to be more of a legal issue than an economic or moral issue

Bill Stepp May 18, 2009 at 6:48 pm

S Andrews writes:

That depends on the publisher; author is helpless in that regards.

Before the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act (see the Wikipedia article on it), an author had to register an original copy with the Copyright Office for the work to be copyrighted. Section 408 of the 1976 Act legislated that all original works were automatically granted copyright protection.
(See also the timeline of the extensions of copyright's duration.)
The 1976 Act also led directly to a horrible unintended consequence, namely the orphan works problem. (Rather than spoil the fun, I'll mention the Wikipedia article "Orphan Works.")

One difference between "intellectual property," or what I like to call the monopoly formerly known as intellectual property–(need a symbol, hope I won't be sued by a lawsuit-happy Prince, the artist who was formerly one of my favorites):

Under the fair use provision of copyright, you can copy some words of a a copyrighted work in your own original work. (Maureen Dowd plagiarizing a blogger in the New York Times doesn't count. She should have noted the author, at least.)

What about a property right in your car? Can I have a "fair use" provision to take it for a spin when you're not using it?

Didn't think so.

George,

Your 2006 (?) paper didn't persuade me, but maybe this one will.

Jeremy P May 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm

Great idea for a Podcast. I was going to send you an e-mail suggesting that you get one of these Libertarian anti-IP guys. Did you ever read the kerfuffle between Richard Epstein and Peter Menell in Regulation Magazine? Very interesting topic and there are two camps even among Libertarians which is very interesting. I am looking forward to listening to this tremendously. Thanks, Professor Roberts.

Jeremy P May 18, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Does the issue not come down to why we have Property Rights in the first place. Do we have Property Rights due to scarcity and avoiding commons problems or do we have property rights to incentivize innovation? It seems that the primary rationale is to deal with scarcity, and since there is no scarcity involved in IP, why should IP exist? Why create scarcity when it doesn't exist? It doesn't make sense to raise oil prices to stimulate energy innovation, and for the same reason it doesn't make sense to create intellectual scarcity when it doesn't exist. I would imagine that the costs have been enormous and possibly outweigh the benefits. This is really an issue where empirical data could actually help. At this time last year, I was an IP defender, but this year, my senior year of high school, I have made the switch to reduced IP protections. Does anybody think that serious changes in IP protections could ever enter the policy debate in the next decade? It seems like there are two few sound bites and too stupid politicians.

Jeremy P May 18, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Does the issue not come down to why we have Property Rights in the first place. Do we have Property Rights due to scarcity and avoiding commons problems or do we have property rights to incentivize innovation? It seems that the primary rationale is to deal with scarcity, and since there is no scarcity involved in IP, why should IP exist? Why create scarcity when it doesn't exist? It doesn't make sense to raise oil prices to stimulate energy innovation, and for the same reason it doesn't make sense to create intellectual scarcity when it doesn't exist. I would imagine that the costs have been enormous and possibly outweigh the benefits. This is really an issue where empirical data could actually help. At this time last year, I was an IP defender, but this year, my senior year of high school, I have made the switch to reduced IP protections. Does anybody think that serious changes in IP protections could ever enter the policy debate in the next decade? It seems like there are two few sound bites and too stupid politicians.

Jeremy P May 18, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Does the issue not come down to why we have Property Rights in the first place. Do we have Property Rights due to scarcity and avoiding commons problems or do we have property rights to incentivize innovation? It seems that the primary rationale is to deal with scarcity, and since there is no scarcity involved in IP, why should IP exist? Why create scarcity when it doesn't exist? It doesn't make sense to raise oil prices to stimulate energy innovation, and for the same reason it doesn't make sense to create intellectual scarcity when it doesn't exist. I would imagine that the costs have been enormous and possibly outweigh the benefits. This is really an issue where empirical data could actually help. At this time last year, I was an IP defender, but this year, my senior year of high school, I have made the switch to reduced IP protections. Does anybody think that serious changes in IP protections could ever enter the policy debate in the next decade? It seems like there are two few sound bites and too stupid politicians.

Jeremy P May 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm

did not mean to post my comment three times. Patience is not one of my virtues.

MnM May 18, 2009 at 7:20 pm

S Andrews,

I did intend any commentary on the authors. I was only pointing out the irony of a book against intellectual property rights having a copyright.

Nathan May 18, 2009 at 7:26 pm

In summary:

IP infringes on real property rights. If I own my chair, or land, or whatever it may be, I can arrange it in whatever way I like, and sell it to whomever I like. IP limits how I can use my own real, tangible property

The justification for property rights is based on rivalry and excludability. If my use of a good prevents your use, and I can easily defend my good, then it will be most efficiently allocated if treated as private property.

Ideas fill neither of these. My use of the quadratic equation does not limit the usefulness of your use. At the same time, once the quadratic equation is known, preventing others from using it would be a nearly impossible endeavor.

Of course the empiricist are also figuring out that patents slow innovation rather than accelerate it.

Stephen May 18, 2009 at 8:16 pm

Wouldn't the elimination of intellectual property right just result in much more convoluted contracts restricting the use of such property? Couldn't the seller of a music CD forbid, as a term of the purchase, any copying of the CD, for example? A company selling a new product could restrict opening up the item as a term of the purchase. It would then seem to still fall under contract law.

Bill Stepp May 18, 2009 at 8:50 pm

Wouldn't the elimination of intellectual property right just result in much more convoluted contracts restricting the use of such property? Couldn't the seller of a music CD forbid, as a term of the purchase, any copying of the CD, for example? A company selling a new product could restrict opening up the item as a term of the purchase. It would then seem to still fall under contract law.

This argument has been put forth by some libertarians. In the real world, it doesn't work though. There are lots of products on the market that never had patent protection supporting their development. I can't think of any that were sold with the legal restrictions mentioned. Plus, the first sale doctrine would make them otiose and unenforecable in any event.

Ray Gardner May 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm

This is one area that I'm still on the fence.

My knee-jerk reaction is to be for intellectual property, but then I read some of the examples of what people want to do with those rights, and it becomes very obvious that this is not so cut and dry.

Martin Brock May 18, 2009 at 10:44 pm

… why not do that for any property?

I can imagine some practical difficulties with the idea, but I don't have a fundamental problem with it.

Basically, you're discussing property taxation. Property taxation has two effects. First, it deprives a title holder of authority over some of the marginal value of the property. Second, it transfers this authority to a more a central authority. I favor reforms doing the former but not the latter.

For example, I also favor title expiration in opposition to estate taxation. Basically, when you die, a probate court auctions your assets, but it doesn't transfer monetary proceeds of the sale to a central authority. Instead, it removes the currency from circulation. The court might hold a public bonfire and burn paper currency.

This ritual serves several purposes. It celebrates the deceased proprietor's accumulated wealth, it subjects capital allocation to the market rather than the will of the deceased, and it reminds people that money is only an accounting device with no intrinsic value.

Of course, monetary authorities would create more currency and lend it to replace the currency removed from circulation. Bidders at the auction would borrow it.

Why not say "company X owns this building until they earn back ten times what it cost to build it"? That would be ridiculous!

Why?

But by the same token, why shouldn't Russ expect to keep earning revenue from his book?

Why should he?

Earnings from a book have two components. One is the marginal value of the author's contribution, and the other is the marginal value of forcibly excluding unauthorized copies. I don't know how one quantifies the former vs. the latter.

Why should the latter be limitless? It's not the value of the author's labor, so it's not Lockean "property" at all. It's the value of forcible imposition. It's a rent.

Furthermore, I doubt that limiting copyrights to ten years would cost Russ much. How many books do you buy that were written ten or twenty years ago? How many books published decades ago are still in print? Some but not many.

I'm no authority on publishing, but I suppose most authors make most of their money on a book in the first decade. Further value is largely a matter of a reputation that follows. This reputation creates a larger, more immediate market for subsequent books.

Even with a longer copyright, Russ might relinquish his right after ten years to pursue more profit on later books. Essentially, rent foregone on the earlier book is an advertising expense, since more people presumably read the earlier book if it can be copied freely, and reading the earlier book increases the market for his later books.

Gil May 18, 2009 at 10:52 pm

Puh-lease! THe arguments against I.P. are the same ones used by Socialists against Capitalists as to real property. In the same sense that someone is supposed to 'homestead' real property 'own' it, a person can only 'own' concepts and designs that are new and different. In the same way a person who 'homesteads' real property can choose to give it away or allow people to inhabit it without rent so too can someone 'give away' their inventions and ideas away to other people if they want too.

Interestingly, a owner of real property doesn't 'need' government protection and recognition of their property, they could theoretically defend it all by themselves. So too could a person try to write up non-government contracts and try to private enforce them against violaters. However, in both cases, neither the small landowner and innovator wouldn't expect to last long against the many theives of the world.

I.P. simply gives people the ability to own the work they invented and doesn't have to be justified for the 'greater good' in the same way private property ownership doesn't have to be justified to those who don't own property.

Martin Brock May 18, 2009 at 11:01 pm

Now imagine if the Constitution said you only have the right to rent out your farm equipment for the first 19 years of that farm equipment's existence. That's essentially what we're doing with patents, and needless to say that would be problematic in the case of farm equipment!

No. That's not essentially what we're doing with patents. It's just not a good analogy, because one tractor can't plow a thousand different fields simultaneously, but one design for a tractor can.

I guess what I'm saying is that if I had to guess I would have assumed that Russ would be in favor of significantly stronger intellectual property rights.

Russ sometimes seems more proprietarian than libertarian to me, but he shares this characteristic with practically all nominal "libertarians", and he's not the worse offender. After reading this site for some time, his conversion doesn't surprise me, and since I agree with it, I suppose he's just marching toward greater enlightenment.

When I raise issues about the positive externalities associated with education or basic research – and provide that as a justification for public supply, that usually gets shot down very quickly.

I agree that education and basic research have positive externalities, but it's not obvious to me that state sponsorship is necessary or desirable for this reason. State sponsorship doesn't create the positive externalities unless the education and basic research exist only with state sponsorship, and I doubt that.

As Russ notes in the podcast, most education, generally speaking, seems to have very little value. If we had much less publicly financed education, we might have much less formal, academic education, but I'm not sure we'd have much less of the education that's really most valuable.

Martin Brock May 18, 2009 at 11:02 pm

… he's not the worst offender …

Martin Brock May 18, 2009 at 11:08 pm

My grandfather practiced law for decades, but he never attended law school. He just read the law and took the bar exam. Sam Ervin, the Senator from North Carolina who chaired the Watergate Committee in the seventies, was widely respected for his mastery of the law, but he never attended law school either. We just don't remember these things.

Bret May 19, 2009 at 1:00 am

Gil wrote: "I.P. simply gives people the ability to own the work they invented…"

You left out the word "first", as in "invented first".

Several times now, completely on my own, I've invented solutions to problems, only to find out, after substantial effort and expense, that someone else had already patented that invention.

So not only did I not get to own the work I invented, I was prohibited from using the work I invented.

On the other hand, I suspect my patents have thwarted others who might've eventually come up with the same patent.

Much of IP is lose, lose, in my experience. Bad for inventors, bad for the public.

It's good for lawyers and governments though.

Cheers May 19, 2009 at 1:09 am

Much appreciated Russ,

I've been looking for a good economic discourse on this for a while. My university education in this area consisted of a professor making vague gestures at a supply-demand graph while making loud sputtering noises that sounded something like "common good". He was a great prof, but a bit of critical thinking in this area would have gone a long way.

DG, I responded in the previous thread. I wasn't sure if you were asking about the antitrust comment or the snarky blog one, so I answered both ;)

Ray Gardner May 19, 2009 at 1:11 am

I mentioned before my knee-jerk reaction to be in favor of IP, but it is the absurd lengths that some are going to that make me rethink the issue which leaves me still sitting on the fence.

For written/published material, there has long been an accepted policy of quoting something in a limited extent, but not so much that the author or publisher could claim an infringement of property rights.

From what I'm seeing, there's very little such balance being applied today.

Gil May 19, 2009 at 2:33 am

So, Bret? I s'pose it like someone going an a land rush in Oklahoma only to find out they were 120 years too late.

The issue of "No fair! I worked hard for what I accomplished!" is akin to a situation of someone 'homesteading' a parcel of land that happened to belong to someone else and the 'homesteader' didn't any signs or fences and wrongly 'presumed' it was unowned.

BTW: Martin in your 'tractor' scenario a simple reply is "garn git yer own tractor and quit trying to pinch mine".

Martin Brock May 19, 2009 at 6:26 am

BTW: Martin in your 'tractor' scenario a simple reply is "garn git yer own tractor and quit trying to pinch mine".

I assume you meant "git your own tractor design", but this reply assumes that I care what you say. I'm not assuming that you may shoot me for building a tractor that looks like a tractor you've built. If you try to pinch my tractor on this pretext, I might shoot you.

Martin Brock May 19, 2009 at 6:30 am

On the other hand, I suspect my patents have thwarted others who might've eventually come up with the same patent.

Have your patents ever been enforced?

Martin Brock May 19, 2009 at 6:49 am

Couldn't the seller of a music CD forbid, as a term of the purchase, any copying of the CD, for example?

They already do.

It would then seem to still fall under contract law.

It's difficult to enforce though. Once I give a copy to you, after opening the CD package, you aren't bound by the contract. Tracing the copies to me is difficult, and charging me for all of them is practically impossible.

Ultimately the digital age just makes many copyrights impractical, because each and every user of information has the technological wherewithal to copy. When copying a book was highly capital intensive, a claimant to copyright could capture economies of scale in an infringement suit, but now claimants must rely on pure intimidation to discourage copying.

Intimidation just doesn't work on many people as a practical matter. If the risk of enforcement is low enough, people just don't care what the statesmen say, so they'll copy music as readily as they smoke pot or drive five miles per hour over the speed limit. Vive la revolution.

Shakespeare's Debtor May 19, 2009 at 7:30 am
Martin Brock May 19, 2009 at 7:32 am

Sam Ervin graduated from Harvard Law

My mistake. I must be thinking of someone else.

Bill Stepp May 19, 2009 at 7:48 am

Gil writes:

THe arguments against I.P. are the same ones used by Socialists against Capitalists as to real property. In the same sense that someone is supposed to 'homestead' real property 'own' it, a person can only 'own' concepts and designs that are new and different. In the same way a person who 'homesteads' real property can choose to give it away or allow people to inhabit it without rent so too can someone 'give away' their inventions and ideas away to other people if they want too.

As John Perry Barlow pointed out (in "Selling Wine without Bottles: The Economy of Mind on the Global Net," in Peter Ludlow, ed., "High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace," MIT Press, 1996) you can't own your ideas, even original ones, because ideas can only be experienced. What you can own is the end result of them when they are instantiated in a book, play, musical score, or invention, to use a few examples. Even then, you only own your own legally owned copies, not someone else's legally owned copies. Therefore in a libertarian world you have no right to restrict someone else's ability to copy or otherwise use his own property so long as he doesn't use it to invade someone else's property.
This in a nutshell is the fallacy of "intellectual property." It should be renamed intellectual monopoly/crookopoly, because that's what it is.

John May 19, 2009 at 9:27 am

Conceptually this just doesn't make sense.
Copyright laws make sense, we're talking about something physical, but IP is putting patents on ideas.
Sorry you can't act upon that thought because someone else had it first.
Huh?
But in an age where we've declared war on poverty and drugs, I guess it makes sense.
Wonko the Sane was right.

Per Kurowski May 19, 2009 at 9:54 am

One of the sad consequences of patents and copyrights is that it generates growth opportunities for the informal or outright illicit sectors of the economy and that as these seems to be growing at much faster rates than the legal and formal economy they could one day overtake us.

Another problem is that copyright or patents infringements do not carry sufficient societal support. In fact most certainly all of us discussing the issue here have in some or another occasion committed crimes of intellectual property violation… and so you end up with a society where fathers and sons go out and do a little crime together for better bonding… not a good thing.

John May 19, 2009 at 10:40 am

"and so you end up with a society where fathers and sons go out and do a little crime together for better bonding… not a good thing."

Oh come on! I'll never forget when my old man bought me illegal fireworks and helped me set them off, or took me trespassing on railroad tracks to go fishing, or stayed up all night with me watching rented movies and taping them at the same time so we could watch them again…

Wonderful bonding experiences!

Nathan May 19, 2009 at 11:15 am

"Puh-lease! THe arguments against I.P. are the same ones used by Socialists against Capitalists as to real property."

That's interesting because most would say an anarchistic society would be more capitalistic than one with a government, and governments are required for IP.

Bret May 19, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Gil wrote: "I s'pose it like someone going an a land rush in Oklahoma only to find out they were 120 years too late."

Nope. It's like going to a land rush, obtaining a property, developing the property, and then having someone taking away that developed property because they were sitting hidden from view on the land during that time.

Bret May 19, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Martin Brock asked: "Have your patents ever been enforced?"

Sorry, can't answer that one.

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: