This is the part the anti-IP crowd never wants to analyse.
Abolishing IP does not abolish control over creation. It abolishes one public, limited, time-bound form of control and pushes everything into contract, secrecy, access restriction, technical locks, employment control, platform terms, and institutional funding.
That does not free the individual creator. It weakens him.
The independent inventor loses the patent. The author loses the protected work. The engineer loses the disclosed technical contribution. The small firm loses the one public right that might allow it to negotiate with capital.
But the large corporation keeps everything else.
It keeps the factory. It keeps the employment contracts. It keeps the NDAs. It keeps trade secrets. It keeps the lawyers. It keeps the servers. It keeps the firmware. It keeps the platform. It keeps distribution. It keeps the dealer network. It keeps the service terms. It keeps the arbitration clauses. It keeps the ability to say: you may access this product only under our conditions.
So the result is not freedom. It is a transfer of power.
Instead of a patent saying, “this disclosed invention is protected for a limited term,” the corporation says, “you do not own the software, you only license it; you may not repair it; you may not reverse engineer it; you may not inspect it; you may not modify it; you may not use unauthorised parts; you may not access diagnostics; you may not sue in court; you must arbitrate; and if you breach the terms, access may be disabled.”
You then “own” the car, tractor, phone, device, platform account, or software in the same way a tenant owns a hotel room: conditionally, temporarily, and subject to rules written by someone else.
That is not property. That is licensed dependency.
And without consumer protection, unfair-contract rules, right-to-repair limits, public courts, and statutory restraints on adhesion contracts, the word “consent” becomes a joke. The buyer clicks. The corporation controls. The theorist calls it voluntary.
That is how you get contractual subordination dressed up as liberty.
The anti-IP position claims to attack monopoly. In practice, it risks replacing public creator rights with private corporate enclosure: secrecy monopoly, access monopoly, platform monopoly, repair monopoly, data monopoly, contract monopoly, and capital monopoly.
Government benefits too. If creators cannot recover privately through transferable rights, more creation moves into grants, procurement, universities, bureaucracies, defence funding, and politically connected institutions. The creator becomes less an owner and more a petitioner, employee, contractor, or dependent supplier.
So no, this is not liberation.
It is the destruction of the independent creator’s legal position while leaving the corporation and the state with every practical mechanism of control.
You have not abolished power.
You have merely stripped it from creators and handed it to the strongest drafter.
S. Tominaga, CSW
Jun 24, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2069631163346682133
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5435
Abolishing IP does not abolish control over creation. It abolishes one public, limited, time-bound form of control and pushes everything into contract, secrecy, access restriction, technical locks, employment control, platform terms, and institutional funding.
That does not free the individual creator. It weakens him.
The independent inventor loses the patent. The author loses the protected work. The engineer loses the disclosed technical contribution. The small firm loses the one public right that might allow it to negotiate with capital.
But the large corporation keeps everything else.
It keeps the factory. It keeps the employment contracts. It keeps the NDAs. It keeps trade secrets. It keeps the lawyers. It keeps the servers. It keeps the firmware. It keeps the platform. It keeps distribution. It keeps the dealer network. It keeps the service terms. It keeps the arbitration clauses. It keeps the ability to say: you may access this product only under our conditions.
So the result is not freedom. It is a transfer of power.
Instead of a patent saying, “this disclosed invention is protected for a limited term,” the corporation says, “you do not own the software, you only license it; you may not repair it; you may not reverse engineer it; you may not inspect it; you may not modify it; you may not use unauthorised parts; you may not access diagnostics; you may not sue in court; you must arbitrate; and if you breach the terms, access may be disabled.”
You then “own” the car, tractor, phone, device, platform account, or software in the same way a tenant owns a hotel room: conditionally, temporarily, and subject to rules written by someone else.
That is not property. That is licensed dependency.
And without consumer protection, unfair-contract rules, right-to-repair limits, public courts, and statutory restraints on adhesion contracts, the word “consent” becomes a joke. The buyer clicks. The corporation controls. The theorist calls it voluntary.
That is how you get contractual subordination dressed up as liberty.
The anti-IP position claims to attack monopoly. In practice, it risks replacing public creator rights with private corporate enclosure: secrecy monopoly, access monopoly, platform monopoly, repair monopoly, data monopoly, contract monopoly, and capital monopoly.
Government benefits too. If creators cannot recover privately through transferable rights, more creation moves into grants, procurement, universities, bureaucracies, defence funding, and politically connected institutions. The creator becomes less an owner and more a petitioner, employee, contractor, or dependent supplier.
So no, this is not liberation.
It is the destruction of the independent creator’s legal position while leaving the corporation and the state with every practical mechanism of control.
You have not abolished power.
You have merely stripped it from creators and handed it to the strongest drafter.
S. Tominaga, CSW
Jun 24, 2026
https://x.com/i/status/2069631163346682133
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5435
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment