Comment: Re: Rothbard,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: at first, I felt the same way (see in situ)

Re: Rothbard,

BTW, Rothbard did not confuse patent and copyright with the mousetrap example. What Rothbard was saying is that the concept of copyright could also be applied to inventions, by adding a restrictive covenant to the sale of the invention that prevents the buyer from copying the invention.

um, that's exactly what I was referring to (at least in my mind, as I was replying/typing. LOL!):

He couldn't parse Rothbard's description of mousetrap (a patent) erroneously described in general as a "copyright." Nor his "perpetuity" in context of the discussion.

I was simply assuming for anyone who listened to the entire 'debate' in full, the fact that I was referring to the "the concept of copyright could also be applied to inventions, by adding a restrictive covenant to the sale of the invention that prevents the buyer from copying the invention"-portion of the discussion on the contractual context would be clear, whether one agrees with that point or not. So, didn't feel the need to elaborate.

The original intent and purpose of the debate was to explore what IP is, what the definition of it was, is, or should/should not be, practical application, principled vs. consequentialist view, direction to move forth from a non-statist protectorate, and possibly moving forward toward a more voluntaryist POV.

NOT, whether what Rothbard or Mises said or did not say what IP should or should not be taken as an immutable gospel, aside from a contextual reference point.

Plus, Kinsella plainly stated that he disagreed with Rothbard, in the manner, description and the particular interpretation of that copyright/patent/IP/covenant stipulations/post-usage Wenzel was putting forth.

I don't have a dog in the fight, aside from the fact that purely from a observer's POV, Wenzel should not be debating Kinsella, a professional patent lawyer, if Wenzel couldn't even define what HIS own understanding of what IP is, for his debate opponent to agree or rebut.

Attempting to cite-off 16pts of disagreements with your opponent is NOT what anyone with an ounce of intellectual pedigree would call a "definition," of the focal point of the debate over the very topic and definition of the concept (Intellectual Property) that you are purporting to argue for.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul