Why We Should Steal Ideas from Each Other

People act like idea-processing machines combining individual thinking and social learning from the experiences of others. Success depends greatly on the quality of exploration and that, in turn, relies on the diversity and independence of our information and idea sources. 

By harvesting from the parts of our social network that touch other streams — that is, by crossing what sociologist Ron Burt called the “structural holes” within the fabric of society — we can create innovation. When we choose to dip into a different stream, we bring up new habits and beliefs, and it is these innovations that help us make better decisions, and help our community to thrive.

More: Why Startups Should Steal Ideas and Hire Weirdos | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

Firms and individuals should be free and encouraged to "steal" ideas from others to promote innovation. Rarely are there any truly new ideas, most are derivative, and we refine and improve those ideas that came before.



Unfortunately, IP (a contradiction in terms) law tends to reward those who claim they have a new idea and seek protection from competition. Seeking protection from competition to me means that one is not secure in their ability to capitalize and market their ideas better than others.



Competition drives innovation, but the process is also cooperative (we work together as a firm, yet compete against other firms), and the results benefit society as a whole rather than a small minority of shareholders. By letting go of the idea that ideas are property that can be owned, innovation can move into high gear and we can start to realize the benefits of advances in technology to improve the quality of life across the board.



Theft occurs when one party denies another party access to a tangible thing. When we "steal ideas," we are sharing and propagating those ideas. They are multiplying, benefiting those who choose to capitalize on them to serve others.

Stephan Kinsella points out some of the flawed logic in the debate over IP and how it affects innovation in the market here, and in his book Against Intellectual Property:

However, the argument that the incentive provided by IP law stimulates additional innovation and creativity has not even been proven. It is entirely possible — even likely, in my view — that the IP system, in addition to imposing billions of dollars of cost on society, actually reduces or impedes innovation, adding damage to damage. 

But even if we assume that the IP system does stimulate some additional, valuable innovation, no one has established yet that the value of the purported gains is greater than the costs of the system. If you ask an advocate of IP how it is that they know there is a net gain, you get silence in response (this is especially true of patent attorneys). They cannot even point to any study to support their utilitarian contention; they usually point to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, as if the back-room dealings of politicians two centuries ago is some sort of evidence. 

In fact, as far as I've been able to tell, virtually every study that attempts to tally the costs and benefits of copyright or patent law either concludes that these schemes cost more than they are worth, that they actually reduce innovation, or the study is inconclusive. There are no studies showing a net gain. There are only repetitions of state propaganda.

More: The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide - Stephan Kinsella - Mises Daily