Intellectual Property

It is in my opinion that to say intellectual property is “antithetical to a private property, free-market,” is totally illogical. Intellectual property is a tangible item and there for qualified private property. No matter what philosophies circulate around its ontology or arguments affecting its control, it is a resource all the same in a free-market. Intellectual property provides incentive for new innovation and entrepreneurship, and provides a means of protection for those producers in the market, that labor to develop new goods and services through fresh ideas. It is my belief that Stephan Kinsella’s article illustrates subjective points that stand to reason that we should not give full consideration to intellectual property rights due strictly to its constitution. He rationalizes the cons of intellectual property as being an overall hindrance to free market more so-on the bases of “moral” particulars and scrutinizes the control factors almost being mercantilist protectionism. The bottom line, is that weather or not, the four-fathers viewed intellectual property as a natural right, or the fact that copyrights and patents can be manipulated by major producers to gain competitive edge, or that some have taken intellectual property by-laws and swayed regulations for their own motives, intellectual property is well with-in the domain of natural rights and there for deserves its place value in commercial trade.
||What is Intellectual Property and Why does it help a free-market||
Intellectual property is a genuine species of property that are distinct creations of the mind giving a set of exclusive rights. Some proponents say that intellectual property is a form of intellectual protectionism, or government-granted monopolies, and argue that the public interest is harmed by legislation such as copyright extension, software patents and business method patents, etc., etc… I say otherwise, feeling that it’s not what you do, but more so how you...