[…] or Illegal : Copyright Violations [↩]Violation of Copyrights is illegal [↩]Patent laws:Beneficial or Bane [↩]Creative Commons Licenses, Wikipedia [↩]Nine Inch Nails Ghost I-IV […]

A common objection runs as follows: all right, it would be criminal for Green to produce and sell the Brown mousetrap; but suppose that someone else, Black, who had not made a contract with Brown, happens to see Green’s mousetrap and then goes ahead and produces and sells the replica? Why should he be prosecuted? The answer is that, as in the case of our critique of negotiable instruments, no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold. Green did not own the total property right in his mousetrap, in accordance with his contract with Brown—but only all rights except to sell it or a replica. But, therefore Black’s title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black’s head, can be no greater than Green’s, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown’s property even though he himself had not made the actual contract.

Of course, there may be some difficulties in the actual enforcement of Brown’s property right. Namely, that, as in all cases of alleged theft or other crime, every defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It would be necessary for Brown to prove that Black (Green would not pose a problem) had access to Brown’s mousetrap, and did not invent this kind of mousetrap by himself independently. By the nature of things, some products (e.g., books, paintings) are easier to prove to be unique products of individual minds than others (e.g., mousetraps).1
 http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

If they want to “protect” their secrets, they should keep it to themselves or they could sign individual non-disclosure contracts with each of their million customers.

They do so.
Now you are talking like goon and a looter. Have you ever bought a book?
The disclaimer and users criteria page clearly mentions whether the writer is selling off rights to publish or is he selling partial rights to read the book and not to copy.
If you deny that written contract on the basis of which the writer and his publisher want to sell the book, you are free to not to buy the book.
if you bought it with the writers claim that the book is NOT sold to be reprinted, recopied, reproduced, and even then you republish it for commercial purpose, than you are breaching the contract and you can be punished.

The writer doesn’t need to go to a governmental office to get a copyright. Only his mention of denial to sell the rights to republish his book is enough.
And it is NOT monopoly, it is individual right, the writer’s right to make a viable contract.
Instead of acting like a looter/robber try talk sense.

Keep in mind that this argument for short term “protection” is an extra one. The main argument is that I owe nothing to any drug manufacturer.

neither the manufacturer owes nothing to you.
if he mentions on the packet of the drug in which he sold you that drug, that he is not agreed upon any reverse engineering process on his drug, and if you cannot respect his contract of selling the drug, you are free to NOT to buy it, then obviously you should not buy the drug. if you buy the drug with the manufacturer’s attached contract, that the drug is not be reverse engineered and remade again, you have to keep the sanctity of that contract. Any breach of that contract should be punishable.

One more thing Arvind, it would be better if you stop talking like communist.
I have a house and I want to own monopolistic rights over it. i do not own Monopoly on my own house because government doesn’t allow that.
Freedom is my Monopoly over my property.
So stop trying to demonize monopoly.

And Oh yeah, before you start giving lectures about tangible/intagible property, I am not talking about tangible or intangible property. I am talking of contractual property.
Breach of copyright means breach of CONTRACT. In a libertarian society, breach of contract is punishable.

In India, companies hire goons to beat up competitors. Here are two examples I can give you off the top of my head. In the early 90s, there were a slew of pharmaceutical drugs with similar but not identical names to those marketed by Dr. Reddy’s laboratories. The way drug companies dealt with this was to hire goons to beat up these small-time imitators.

A second example of monopoly rights being sorted out by strong arm tactics is that of cable companies. Again, we go back to the 90s. In the mid-90s, there were multiple cable service operators in any given locality and there was healthy competition between them. Eventually, SitiCable hired goons to intimidate the other players and established monopolies.

I strongly feel that if libertarians oppose short term patents, they should provide a way to protect the innovators/creators/inventors interests too

Why is it my obligation to provide for what is in someone else’s interest? I don’t see why I should accept restricting my freedom (to reverse engineer what I please). “Protecting” (i.e., granting illegitimate monopoly rights) others is not what I am born for. If they want to “protect” their secrets, they should keep it to themselves or they could sign individual non-disclosure contracts with each of their million customers. They could administer the medicines themselves (e.g., like the fish medicine in Hyderabad is a successful model).

However, since you ask for some short term protection, I have to point out that if the drug is really complicated, there is a short term protection already built in as the imitator will take at least a few weeks to reverse engineer the drug and test it. So a short term protection already exists. IF the imitator cracks it within a day, it would mean the drug was not all that complicated anyway and so not much research must have gone into it. Keep in mind that this argument for short term “protection” is an extra one. The main argument is that I owe nothing to any drug manufacturer.

Even these utilitarian arguments are of a pseudo-scientific nature as they first prevent the situation with which a comparison can be made and then claim that the situation created by the existence of patent laws is beter than the one that no one has experienced due to strong arm tactics.

At least in India, there haven’t been any strong arm tactics followed till now, on the other hand, Indian government had provided protection for Indian companies against other countries patent laws.

it is not the issue of patents, copyright IP etc, the issue is a way to provide certain set of security to the innovator/creator/inventor from a sudden collapse.

I strongly feel that if libertarians oppose short term patents, they should provide a way to protect the innovators/creators/inventors interests too, otherwise in absence of that IP do gets a validity, and contract-system provides a certain objectivity to it too.

Preventing imitation by using violence is unethical and violates the liberty of individuals.

“I am saying short term patents helps the innovator, and the investors in research and invention R&D to get their invested money back.”

Sorry that I misinterpreted your writing. I defined the term “patent” as ideas protected by the state. So I assumed that you advocate IP.

“As a libertarian, I recognize the importance of short term patents that can be provided security on contract base by free market”

Now I recognize that you use the term “patent” to refer to the trade secrets protected by contracts.

“I am not utilitarian, I am Individualist”

I can see what you mean by that.