Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law.^[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

Although many of the legal principles governing intellectual property have evolved over centuries, it was not until the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be used, and not until the late 20th century that it became commonplace in the majority of the world.^[2] The British Statute of Anne 1710 and the Statute of Monopolies 1623 are now seen as the origins of copyright and patent law respectively.^[3]

History[link]

The Statute of Anne came into force in 1710

Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 with the founding of the North German Confederation whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property (Schutz des geistigen Eigentums) to the confederation.^[4] When the administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) merged in 1893, they located in Berne, and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new combined title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property. The organisation subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, and was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by treaty as an agency of the United Nations. According to Lemley, it was only at this point that the term really began to be used in the United States (which had not been a party to the Berne Convention),^[2] and it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.^[5]

"The history of patents does not begin with inventions, but rather with royal grants by Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) for monopoly privileges... Approximately 200 years after the end of Elizabeth's reign, however, a patent represents a legal [right] obtained by an inventor providing for exclusive control over the production and sale of his mechanical or scientific invention... [demonstrating] the evolution of patents from royal prerogative to common-law doctrine."^[6]

In an 1818 collection of his writings, the French liberal theorist, Benjamin Constant, argued against the recently introduced idea of "property which has been called intellectual."^[7] The term intellectual property can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears."^[8] The statement that "discoveries are...property" goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years."^[9] In Europe, French author A. Nion mentioned propriété intellectuelle in his Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs, published in 1846.

Until recently, the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection possible in order to encourage innovation. Historically, therefore, they were granted only when they were necessary to encourage invention, limited in time and scope.^[10]

The concept's origins can potentially be traced back further. Jewish law includes several considerations whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist – notably the principle of Hasagat Ge'vul (unfair encroachment) was used to justify limited-term publisher (but not author) copyright in the 16th century.^[11]

Objectives[link]

Currently, particularly in the United States, the objective of intellectual property legislators and those who support its implementation is "absolute protection". "If some intellectual property is desirable because it encourages innovation, they reason, more is better. The thinking is that creators will not have sufficient incentive to invent unless they are legally entitled to capture the full social value of their inventions." ^[12] This absolute protection or full value view treats intellectual property as another type of 'real' property, typically adopting its law and rhetoric.

Financial incentive[link]

These exclusive rights allow owners of intellectual property to benefit from the property they have created, providing a financial incentive for the creation of an investment in intellectual property, and, in case of patents, pay associated research and development costs.^[13] Some commentators, such as David Levine and Michele Boldrin, dispute this justification.^[14]

Economic growth[link]

The WIPO treaty and several related international agreements are premised on the notion that the protection of intellectual property rights are essential to maintaining economic growth. The WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook gives two reasons for intellectual property laws:

One is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development.^[15]

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) states that "effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic growth across all industries and globally".^[16]

Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the U.S. can be traced to intangible assets.^[17] "IP-intensive industries" are estimated to generate 72 percent more value added (price minus material cost) per employee than "non-IP-intensive industries".^{[18][dubious – discuss]}

A joint research project of the WIPO and the United Nations University measuring the impact of IP systems on six Asian countries found "a positive correlation between the strengthening of the IP system and subsequent economic growth."^[19]

Economists have also shown that IP can be a disincentive to innovation when that innovation is drastic. IP makes excludable non-rival intellectual products that were previously non-excludable. This creates economic inefficiency as long as the monopoly is held. A disincentive to direct resources toward innovation can occur when monopoly profits are less than the overall welfare improvement to society. This situation can be seen as a market failure, and an issue of appropriability.^[20]

Morality[link]

According to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author".^[21] Although the relationship between intellectual property and human rights is a complex one,^[22] there are moral arguments for intellectual property.

The arguments that justify intellectual property fall into three major categories. Personality theorists believe intellectual property is an extension of an individual. Utilitarians believe that intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation. Lokeans argue that intellectual property is justified based on deservedness and hard work.

Various moral justifications for private property can be used to argue in favor of the morality of intellectual property, such as:

1. Natural Rights/Justice Argument: this argument is based on Locke’s idea that a person has a natural right over the labour and/or products which is produced by his/her body. Appropriating these products is viewed as unjust. Although Locke had never explicitly stated that natural right applied to products of the mind,^[23] it is possible to apply his argument to intellectual property rights, in which it would be unjust for people to misuse another's ideas.^[24] Lokeans argument for intellectual property is based upon the idea that laborers have the right to control that which they create. They argue that we own our bodies which are the laborers, this right of ownership extends to what we create. Thus, intellectual property ensures this right when it comes to production.
2. Utilitarian-Pragmatic Argument: according to this rationale, a society that protects private property is more effective and prosperous than societies that do not. Innovation and invention in 19th century America has been said to be attributed to the development of the patent system.^[25] By providing innovators with "durable and tangible return on their investment of time, labor, and other resources", intellectual property rights seek to maximize social utility.^[26] The presumption is that they promote public welfare by encouraging the "creation, production, and distribution of intellectual works".^[27] Utilitarians argue that without intellectual property there would be a lack of incentive to produce new idea. Systems of protection such as Intellectual property optimize social utility.
3. "Personality" Argument: this argument is based on a quote from Hegel: "Every man has the right to turn his will upon a thing or make the thing an object of his will, that is to say, to set aside the mere thing and recreate it as his own".^[28] European intellectual property law is shaped by this notion that ideas are an "extension of oneself and of one’s personality".^[29] Personality theorists argue that by being a creator of something one is inherently at risk and vulnerable for having their ideas and designs stolen and/or altered. Intellectual property protects these moral claims that have to do with personality.

Writer Ayn Rand has argued that the protection of intellectual property is essentially a moral issue. The belief is that the human mind itself is the source of wealth and survival and that all property at its base is intellectual property. To violate intellectual property is therefore no different morally than violating other property rights which compromises the very processes of survival and therefore constitutes an immoral act.^[30]

Criticism[link]

"Copying is not theft!" badge with a character resembling Mickey Mouse is a visual pun on Mickey as a symbol of the whole intellectual property industry^{[clarification needed]} and its attitude towards copying.^{[citation needed]}

The term itself[link]

Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion." He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights".^[31] Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term.

Lawrence Lessig, along with many other copyleft and free software activists, have criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original).^[32]

Limitations[link]

Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the free culture movement, point at intellectual monopolies as harming health, preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses,^[33][34] and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents and business method patents.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes that "conflicts may exist between the respect for and implementation of current intellectual property systems and other human rights".^[35] It argues that intellectual property tends to be governed by economic goals when it should be viewed primarily as a social product; in order to serve human well-being, intellectual property systems must respect and conform to human rights laws. According to the Committee, when systems fail to do so they risk infringing upon the human right to food and health, and to cultural participation and scientific benefits.^[36]

Some libertarian critics of intellectual property have argued that allowing property rights in ideas and information creates artificial scarcity and infringes on the right to own tangible property. Stephan Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:

[I]magine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let's call him Galt-Magnon—decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.^[37]

Other criticism of intellectual property law concerns the tendency of the protections of intellectual property to expand, both in duration and in scope. The trend has been toward longer copyright protection^[38] (raising fears that it may some day be eternal).^{[32][39][40][41]} In addition, the developers and controllers of items of intellectual property have sought to bring more items under the protection. Patents have been granted for living organisms,^[42] (and in the US, certain living organisms have been patentable for over a century)^[43] and colors have been trademarked.^[44] Because they are systems of government-granted monopolies copyrights, patents, and trademarks are called intellectual monopoly privileges, (IMP) a topic on which several academics, including Birgitte Andersen^[45] and Thomas Alured Faunce^[46] have written.

Thomas Jefferson once said in a letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."^[47]

In 2005 the RSA launched the Adelphi Charter, aimed at creating an international policy statement to frame how governments should make balanced intellectual property law.

Another limitation of current U.S. Intellectual Property legislation is its focus on individual and joint works; thus, copyright protection can only be obtained in 'original' works of authorship.^[48] This definition excludes any works that are the result of community creativity, for example Native American songs and stories; current legislation does not recognize the uniqueness of indigenous cultural 'property' and its ever-changing nature. Simply asking native cultures to 'write down' their cultural artifacts on tangible mediums ignores their necessary orality and enforces a Western bias of the written form as more authoritative.

Ethics[link]

The ethical problems brought up by intellectual property rights are most pertinent when it is socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines and genetically modified seeds that are given intellectual property protection. For example, pharmaceutical companies that produce, apply^{[clarification needed]} intellectual property rights in order to prevent other companies from manufacturing their product without the additional cost of research and development. The application of intellectual property rights allow companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of production in order to recoup the costs of research and development.^[49] However, this immediately excludes from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product, in this case a life saving drug.

See also[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Intellectual property

• Outline of intellectual property
• Information policy

Notes[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Intellectual property entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Links to related articles v t e Law Core subjects Administrative law Constitutional law Contract Criminal law Equity Evidence Law of obligations Procedure Civil Criminal Property law Public international law Public law Restitution Statutory law Tort Other subjects Admiralty law Aviation law Banking law Bankruptcy Commercial law Companies law Competition law Conflict of laws Consumer protection Cyberlaw Election law Energy law Entertainment law Environmental law Family law Financial regulation Health law Immigration law Intellectual property International criminal law International human rights Labour law Military law Product liability Space law Sports law Tax law Trust law Unjust enrichment Wills Sources of law Constitution Custom Decree Edict Executive order Delegated legislation Rulemaking Precedent Case law Statute Legal systems Canon law Civil law Common law Chinese law Jewish law Roman law Russian law Sharia Socialist law Statutory law Xeer Legal theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Economic analysis History International legal theory Philosophy Sociology Legal institutions Bureaucracy Civil society Election commission Executive Judiciary Legal profession Legislature Military Police Category Index Outline Portal v t e Intellectual property activism Issues and debates Copyright infringement Copyright infringement of software Digital rights management Gripe site History of music piracy Intellectual property Legal aspects of file sharing Mashup videos music Patents Public domain Software patent debate Concepts All rights reversed Anti-copyright notice Copyleft Commercial use of copyleft works Commons-based peer production Free content Free software licence Infoanarchism Libertarian positions Open content Open design Open Music Model Open patent Open source hardware Open source software Share-alike Movements Access to Knowledge movement Anti-copyright Cultural environmentalism Free culture movement Free software movement Organizations Creative Commons Electronic Frontier Foundation Free Software Foundation Open Rights Group The Pirate Bay Piratbyrån Pirate Party Students for Free Culture Documentaries Steal This Film (2006, 2007) Good Copy Bad Copy (2007) RiP!: A Remix Manifesto (2008)

Sir Adrian Johns KCB CBE KstJ
Johns at his swearing in ceremony
Governor of Gibraltar
Incumbent
Assumed office 26 October 2009
Chief Minister	Peter Caruana Fabian Picardo
Preceded by	Sir Robert Fulton
Personal details
Born	1951 (age 60–61) Redruth, United Kingdom
Alma mater	Imperial College, London
Military service
Allegiance	United Kingdom
Service/branch	Royal Navy
Years of service	1973–present
Rank	Vice admiral
Commands	HMS Ocean HMS Campbeltown HMS Ariadne HMS Juno Naval Home Command
Battles/wars	Iraq War
Awards	Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath Commander of the Order of the British Empire Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service Knight of Justice of the Order of St. John Aide-de-camp

Vice Admiral Sir Adrian James Johns KCB, CBE, KStJ, ADC (born 1951^[1]) is the current Governor of Gibraltar and a former senior officer in the Royal Navy. His most senior naval posting was as Second Sea Lord from 2005 to 2008.

Career[link]

Educated at Newquay grammar school in Cornwall and then Imperial College, London, where he studied physics,^[2] he joined the Royal Navy in 1973. He was promoted lieutenant on 1 September 1975 (with seniority from 1 January 1975).^[3] After his initial postings he trained as a helicopter pilot, serving with 824 Naval Air Squadron as a Westland Sea King pilot aboard HMS Ark Royal, before becoming a flying instructor in 1979. His first command was HMS Yarnton in Hong Kong in 1981. He was promoted lieutenant commander on 16 October 1982.^[4] After holding various naval posts, he was promoted commander on 30 June 1988,^[5] and then commanded the frigates HMS Juno and HMS Ariadne between 1988 and 1990.

He was promoted captain on 31 December 1994.^[6] In between various appointments at the Ministry of Defence he held command of HMS Campbeltown from 1995 to 1996.

He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2001 New Year Honours,^[7] and later that year he took command of HMS Ocean which in Spring 2003 was deployed to Iraq. For this service he received a Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service, gazetted on 31 October 2003.^[8] He relinquished command of Ocean with his promotion to rear admiral on 27 May 2003.^[9]

He became Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff in May 2003 and then served as Rear Admiral Fleet Air Arm from October that year. He was promoted vice admiral and appointed Second Sea Lord and Commander in Chief of Naval Home Command in October 2005.^[10] He was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in the 2008 New Year Honours.^[11] He was succeeded as Second Sea Lord by Vice-Admiral Alan Massey in a ceremony aboard HMS Victory on 15 July 2008.

On 9 June 2009, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that Johns would succeed Sir Robert Fulton, as Governor of Gibraltar in autumn 2009.^[12][13] On Monday 26 October 2009 he arrived on HMS Lancaster and was sworn in to the office of Governor of Gibraltar.^[14][15]

On 2 February 2011, Sir Adrian was appointed a Knight of the Order of St. John, an honour in the personal gift of Her Majesty The Queen.^[16]

Honours and awards[link]

	Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB)	2008
80px	Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)	2001
	Knight of the Order of St John (KStJ)	2011
	General Service Medal
	NATO medal for the former Yugoslavia
	Iraq Medal
	OSM Afghanistan
80px	Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal	2002
	Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal	2012

References[link]

• Royal Navy - Second Sea Lord archived at the Internet Archive from [1] on 2007-05-07.

v t e Governors of Gibraltar Habsburg occupation (1704) Rooke · Hesse-Darmstadt · Nugent · Shrimpton · Elliott · Stanwix Treaty of Utrecht (1713) Portmore · Kane · Clayton · Sabine · Hargrave · Bland · Fowke · Tyrawley · Home · Cornwallis · Boyd · Eliott · Boyd · Rainsford · O'Hara · Kent and Strathearn · Fox · Dalrymple · Cradock · Campbell · Don · Chatham · Don Crown colony (1830) Houston · Woodford · Wilson · Gardiner · Fergusson · Codrington · Airey · Williams · Napier of Magdala · Adye · Hardinge · Smyth · Nicholson · Biddulph · White · Forestier-Walker · Hunter · Miles · Smith-Dorrien · Monro · Godley · Harington · Ironside · Liddell · Gort · Mason-Macfarlane · Eastwood · Anderson · MacMillan · Redman · Keightley · Ward · Lathbury · Begg · Grandy · Jackson British dependent territory (1981) Williams · Terry · Reffell · Chapple · White · Luce · Durie British Overseas Territory (2002) Richards · Fulton · Johns

Eric Schmidt
Eric Schmidt at the 37th G8 summit in 2011.
Born	(1955-04-27) April 27, 1955 (age 57) Washington, D.C., United States
Residence	Atherton, California, U.S.
Alma mater	Princeton University University of California, Berkeley
Occupation	Software engineer, businessman
Salary	$1.25 million in 2012[1]
Net worth	US$ 6.9 billion (2012)[2]
Title	Executive Chairman of Google
Website
Google.com - Eric Schmidt

Eric Emerson Schmidt (born April 27, 1955) is an American software engineer, businessman and the current executive chairman of Google.^[3] From 2001 to 2011, he served as the chief executive of Google.

Additionally, Schmidt was a former member on the board of directors for Apple Inc. and sat on the boards of trustees for both Carnegie Mellon University and Princeton University.^[4][5][6]

Along with Mike Lesk, Schmidt co-authored the lex analysis software program for the Unix computer operating system.

Biography[link]

Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., and grew up in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. After graduating from Yorktown High School,^[7] Schmidt attended Princeton University where he earned a B.S. in electrical engineering in 1976.^[8] At the University of California, Berkeley, he earned an MS in 1979 for designing and implementing a network linking the campus computer center, the CS and the EECS departments,^[9] and a PhD in 1982 in EECS with a dissertation about the problems of managing distributed software development and tools for solving these problems.^[10] He was joint author of lex (a lexical analyzer and an important tool for compiler construction). He taught at Stanford Graduate School of Business as a part time professor.^[11]

Schmidt and his wife Wendy lived in Atherton, California in 1999.^[12] In 2011, he was reported to be dating Lisa Shields, a communications executive for the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based foreign policy think tank.^[13].

He was on the list of ARTnews 200 top art collectors in 2008.^[14]

He is also a member of the Bilderberg Group and attended the Swiss 2011 Bilderberg conference in St. Moritz, Switzerland.^[15][16]

The Eric Schmidt Family Foundation[link]

The Eric Schmidt Family Foundation addresses issues of sustainability and the responsible use of natural resources. Wendy and Eric Schmidt, working with Heart Howerton, a San Francisco architectural firm that specializes in large-scale land use, have inaugurated several projects on the island of Nantucket that seek to sustain the unique character of the island, and to minimize the impact of seasonal visitation on the island's core community. Wendy Schmidt offered the prize purse of the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X CHALLENGE, a challenge award for efficient capturing of crude oil from seawater motivated by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.^[17]

Career[link]

Early career[link]

Early in his career, Schmidt held a series of technical positions with IT companies, Byzromotti Design, including Bell Labs, Zilog and Xerox’s famed Palo Alto Research Cente (PARC).

From Sun to Google[link]

Schmidt joined Sun Microsystems in 1983 as its first software manager. He rose to become director of software engineering, vice president and general manager of the software products division, vice president of the general systems group, and president of Sun Technology Enterprises.^[18]

During his time at Sun he was the butt of two notable April Fool's Day pranks. In the first his office was taken apart and rebuilt on a platform in the middle of a pond complete with working phone. The next year a working Volkswagen Bug was taken apart and re-assembled in his office.

In April 1997, he became CEO and chairman of the board of Novell. Schmidt left Novell after the acquisition of Cambridge Technology Partners.

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin interviewed Schmidt. Impressed by him,^[19] they recruited Schmidt to run their company in 2001 under the guidance of venture capitalists John Doerr and Michael Moritz.

Google[link]

Schmidt joined Google's board of directors as chairman in March 2001 and became the company's CEO in August 2001. At Google, Schmidt shared responsibility for Google's daily operations with founders Page and Brin. As indicated by page 29 of Google's 2004 S-1 Filing^[20] Schmidt, Page, and Brin ran Google as a triumvirate. Schmidt had legal responsibilities typically assigned to the CEO of a public company and focused on management of the vice presidents and the sales organization.

According to Google's website, Schmidt also focuses on "building the corporate infrastructure needed to maintain Google's rapid growth as a company and on ensuring that quality remains high while product development cycle times are kept to a minimum."^[21]

In 2007, PC World ranked Schmidt as the first on the list of the 50 most important people on the web, along with Google co-Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.^[22]

In 2009, Schmidt was considered one of the "TopGun CEOs" by Brendan Wood International, an advisory agency.^[23][24]

On January 20, 2011, Google announced that Schmidt would step down as CEO of Google, but continue as the executive chairman of the company, and act as an adviser to co-founders Page and Brin. Page replaced Schmidt as CEO on April 4, 2011. ^[25]

The 2011 book In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives by Steven Levy claims that in 2001, Schmidt requested that a political donation he made be removed from Google search results. The request was not fulfilled. Schmidt has denied this ever occurred.^[26]

Apple[link]

Schmidt was elected to Apple's board of directors on August 28, 2006.^[27] On August 3, 2009, it was announced that Schmidt would resign from the board of directors at Apple due to conflicts of interest amid the growing competition between Google and Apple.^[4]

President Barack Obama[link]

Schmidt was a campaign advisor and major donor to Barack Obama, and when he announced he was leaving that perch, he planned to remain at the forefront of Google’s government relations team. Obama has even considered him for Commerce Secretary.^[28] Schmidt was an informal advisor to the Obama presidential campaign and began campaigning the week of October 19, 2008, on behalf of the candidate.^[29] He had been mentioned as a possible candidate for the chief technology officer position which Obama created in his administration.^[30] After Obama won, Schmidt was a member of President Obama's transition advisory board. He proposed that the easiest way to solve all of the problems of the United States at once, at least in the domestic policy, is by a stimulus program that rewards renewable energy and, over time, attempts to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.^[31] He has since become a new member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology PCAST.^[32]

New America Foundation[link]

The New America Foundation is a non-profit public policy institute and think tank, founded in 1999. Schmidt is the current chairman of the board of directors. He succeeded founding chairman James Fallows in 2008.^[33]

Innovation Endeavors[link]

Founded in 2010 by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and Dror Berman, Innovation Endeavors is an early stage venture fund focused on advancing the world by providing high-impact entrepreneurs with the capital, coaching and network to build game-changing ventures. Innovation Endeavors has invested in more than 30 companies around the world in various industries. The firm is based in Palo Alto, USA. ^[34]

Compensation[link]

Upon being hired at Google, Eric Schmidt was paid a salary of $250,000, and an annual performance bonus. He was granted 14,331,703 shares of class B common stock at 30 cents per share, and 426,892 shares of Series C preferred stock at purchase price of $2.34.^[35]

Schmidt and the Google founders agreed to a base salary of $1 in 2004 (which continued through 2010), with other compensation of $557,465 in 2006,^[36] $508,763 in 2008 and $243,661 in 2009. He did not receive any additional stock, or options in 2009 or 2010.^[37][38] Most of his compensation was for "personal security" and charters of private aircraft.^[38] Schmidt is one of the few people who became billionaires (in United States dollars) based on stock options received as an employee in a corporation of which he was neither the founder nor a relative of the founder.^[39] In its 2011 'World's Billionaires' list, Forbes ranked Schmidt as the 136th richest person in the world, with an estimated wealth of $7 billion.^[2] Google gave him $100 million in 2011 as a parting gift.^[40]

Views[link]

During an interview which aired on December 3, 2009, on the CNBC documentary "Inside the Mind of Google", Schmidt was asked, "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" His reply was: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that, that information could be made available to the authorities." ^[41][42] At the Techonomy conference on August 4, 2010, Schmidt expressed that technology is good, but he said that the only way to manage the challenges is "much greater transparency and no anonymity." Schmidt also stated that in an era of asymmetric threats, "true anonymity is too dangerous." ^[43]

In August 2010, Schmidt clarified his company's views on network neutrality: "I want to be clear what we mean by Net neutrality: What we mean is if you have one data type like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. But it's okay to discriminate across different types, so you could prioritize voice over video, and there is general agreement with Verizon and Google on that issue."^[44]

According to PCWorld Schmidt also expressed the following sentiment: "if you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear" ^[45]

See also[link]

• List of billionaires
• 70/20/10 Model — business model advocated by Schmidt^[46]
• RechargeIT

References[link]

• "Google Boss Dates P.R. Beauty". New York Post. July 28, 2011. http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/google_boss_dates_beauty_nb2QK0SyBVOuJ4ZNlV5gCP. 

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Eric E. Schmidt

• Eric Schmidt on Google+
• Eric Schmidt on Twitter
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Eric Schmidt on Charlie Rose
• Eric Schmidt at the Internet Movie Database
• Eric Schmidt collected news and commentary at The Guardian
• Eric Schmidt collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Eric Schmidt collected news and commentary at The Wall Street Journal

Speeches

• Eric Schmidt and Larry Page speaking at Stanford (May 1, 2002)
• Eric Schmidt talks about innovation on Executive Talks, November 2006
• Schmidt-ceo-of-google.html Eric Schmidt interview by iinnovate, March 2007^{[dead link]}
• YouTube: Eric Schmidt at the Seoul Digital Forum. (2007.06.05)
• Eric Schmidt speaks as part of NASA 50 years Lecture Series, January 17, 2008
• Mobile World Congress 2010 Keynote: Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google(Feb 2010)
• iTunes: Google making of a modern company.^[when?]

Articles

• CNET: Google balances privacy, reach (July 14, 2005), which uses Eric Schmidt as an example of the personal information held by Google.
• Princeton University Board of Trustees^{[dead link]}

Stephan Kinsella

Norman Stephan Kinsella (born 1965) is an American intellectual property lawyer and libertarian legal theorist. His electronically published works are primarily published on his blog and websites associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and anarcho-capitalist organizations.

Education[link]

Born in Prairieville, Louisiana, he attended Louisiana State University where he earned Bachelor of Science (BS) and Master of Science (MS) degrees in electrical engineering, and a Juris Doctor (JD) from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center. He also obtained an LL.M. at the University of London.

Career in law[link]

While Kinsella was general counsel of Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. of Sugar Land, Texas from 2000 to 2012, he is now practicing law with Kinsella Law Group in Houston since Feb. 2012. A practicing intellectual property attorney and former adjunct professor of law at South Texas College of Law, where he taught computer law, Kinsella is actively involved with libertarian legal and political theory, and is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute as well as the former Book Review Editor for the Institute's Journal of Libertarian Studies. He is also a contributor to the news and opinion blog at LewRockwell.com and is the creator of Libertarian Papers, a peer-reviewed online journal published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.^[1]

He writes that, after college, he "began to put more emphasis on Austrian economics and paleolibertarian insights of Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Rockwell."^[2]

Publications[link]

Kinsella's legal publications include books and articles about patent law, contract law, e-commerce law, international law and other topics. Kinsella has also published and lectured on a variety of libertarian topics, often combining libertarian and legal analysis. Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory.

In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's^[3] and Williamson Evers's^[4] title transfer theory of contract linking it with inalienability theory while also attempting to clarify that theory.^[5] Kinsella advances a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory.^[6] He gives non-utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles.^[7] He offers a discourse ethics argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel.^[8]

Books[link]

• Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk (with Paul E. Comeaux). Oceana Publications, 1997. ISBN 978-0-379-21371-3
• Online Contract Formation (with Andrew Simpson). Oxford University Press, 2004. ISBN 978-0-379-21519-9
• International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide (with Noah Rubins). Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0-379-21522-9
• Against Intellectual Property. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933550-32-9

Notes[link]

External links[link]

• KinsellaLaw, Stephan Kinsella's legal website
• StephanKinsella.com, Stephan Kinsella's libertarian website
• List of publications
• Archive of Kinsella commentary from LewRockwell.com
• Symposium: "Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?" Ilana Mercer, Stephan Kinsella, and James DeLong. Insight on the News. 21 May 2001.
• AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Journal of Libertarian Studies. Volume 15, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 1–53.

v t e Anarcho-capitalism Literature Relationship with anarchism Relationship with minarchism Anarcho-capitalist revolution Symbolism Criticisms Features Aggression insurance Crime insurance Dispute resolution organization Free-market roads Jurisdictional arbitrage Non-aggression principle Polycentric law Private defense agency Private Governance Self-ownership Spontaneous order