There are two types of pro-IP Libertarians, the natural right based, and utilitarians. I will cover both kind of arguments.

Utilitarian Libertarians support Intellectual Property rights on the grounds of utility, that following an individual liberty based attitude results in maximum benefit to maximum people, so that’s why we must follow that specific Libertarian viewpoint. Most prominent being anarcho-capitalist David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman), who supports Intellectual Property rights on the grounds that having IP rights is beneficial for the growth and progress. It serves as the maximum utility to the people.

Natural Rights Libertarians support IP rights on the grounds of the natural right of man. Most prominent being Andrew J. Galambos, J. Neil Schulman, and Ayn Rand. Right now I will deal Ayn Rand’s viewpoint in general later I will deal with her arguments extensively. According to Natural Rights Libertarians who support IP, creations of minds are entitled to protection just as tangible property is. So just as a man has a right to protection of the crops he grows, he has a right to protection of the art he makes.

The opposite of Intellectual Property rights among Libertarians is widespread. Murray Rothbard, Wendy McElroy, Tom G Palmer, and my favorite Stephen Kinsella.

The utilitarian defense for IP, claims that having copyright and patents creates maximum utility to the people, but it is the weakest argument for any Libertarian standpoint. If tomorrow it proves that giving A’s wealth to B will result in creation of maximum utility to people, it does not justifies theft of A’s property. Similarly despite of the fact that one may defend IP rights as it results in greater marginal utility, it cannot justifies the unethical violation of individual freedom, and his right to use his property in a way he wants. On the top of that utilitarian argument fails to prove that having IP rights is more beneficial than not having IP rights. Mises has shown that just because a product has market price does not gives any indication of its value. Similarly, merely subtracting the cost of IP laws implementation from the benefits of such laws does not tells us the value of IP laws.

Econometric studies do not show considerable increase in wealth because of IP laws, perhaps there would be more innovation without IP laws, more money for Research and development if its not being spent on patents and IP laws. In fact if companies do not rely on 20 year monopolies they will have more incentives to develop new technologies.Most of the money spent on IP laws is basically not spent on securing their IP rights, rather to make sure whatever they are developing or creating does not infringes anyone else’s rights. If you are a patent attorney you don’t make most money for applying for patents, rather than finding out which patents you would be infringing with your invention.

Also if IP rights have larger utility why is that only practical applications are protected, why not theoretical concepts are patented? If awarding monopoly on practical applications result in greater inventions of practical applications, wouldn’t awarding IP rights on theoretical concepts result in greater discoveries of theoretical concepts. And why only 20 years, what is the idea behind choosing the duration of a IP right only for 20 years, why not 19 or 21? Lets award a IP right to the inventor of Internal Combustion engine, this will force everybody else to discover their own engines, maybe somebody would discover John Galt’s perpetual combustion engine. But we known the truth, if nobody but the licensee of Internal combustion engine were allowed to have them, nobody else would have been able to make anything else but just a more unique way traveling from one place to another.

The natural rights libertarians like Rand, claim that a man must be given a right to enjoy the full fruits of his labor. Nobody shall loot his product. But the problem is Rand refuses to extend this idea into the discovery of scientific truths of the nature. According to her only practical applications of truths of the nature must be protected, not the discovery of truths themselves. But there is a big problem with this discovery and invention concept. Its a scientific truth that beheading a person will result in his death. Anyone discovering the fact that beheading a man results in his death is not allowed to claim IP rights on it. But at the same time, when a person creates a guillotine gets to earn property rights on his design. What invention has he done? He has merely discovered a fact that a blade tied with some weight when falls on a man’s neck beheads it and kills him. Isn’t he claiming an IP right on a scientific truth that when a heavy blade falls on the neck of a guy he dies.

So this is the problem with natural right defense of IP rights, the difference between discovery and invention. Since in an Objectivist world A=A, so any derivation of that fact say A+A=A+A is a hard scientific proof. A Mathematician who recently discovered a new way of calculating the shortest distance between two points was not given patent because he merely discovered a scientific “truth”. What about his natural right of being able to enjoy the fruits of his labor? Isn’t it purely arbitrary decision that engineers and songwriters must be given a reward, but not scientists and philosophers.

Another natural rights libertarian Galambos went to the ridiculous lengths to claim property rights in ideas. He told his students to not to repeat what he taught. He dropped a nickel in a box  every time he uses the word “Liberty” to be paid to the descendants of Thomas Paine, allegedly the inventor of the word “Liberty. He changed his name from Joseph Andrew Galambos Jr to Andrew Joseph Galambos to avoid infringing the property rights of his father with similar name. This is the ridiculousness of Intellectual Property rights. You will have to take permissions from Edison’s heirs for every time you have to make a bulb, and pay money to the heirs of the first person who made a hut, after moving out of caves.