C4IP and C-IP2: For IP, not Innovation

by Stephan Kinsella on October 3, 2026

From Kinsella, “C4IP and C-IP2: For IP, not Innovation,” C4SIF Blog (Oct. 1, 2026):

Economic Freedom of the World Rankings and Intellectual Property: The United States’ Bad Ranking is Even Worse Than Reported
USPTO/Commerce Dept. Distortions: “IP Contributes $5 Trillion and 40 Million Jobs to Economy”
“Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way”

I formed the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF) back in October 2013¹ to separate my libertarian-related anti-IP writings from my other IP writings and to form a center dedicated to freedom and innovation. As our mission statement in the sidebar clearly states:

We are for property rights, free markets, competition, commerce, cooperation, and the voluntary sharing of knowledge, and oppose IP laws, which systematically impede or hamper innovation.

In other words, we are against IP because we are in favor of innovation and property rights, and freedom, liberty, and justice. We are not against IP just for the hell of it, but because we recognize that IP law violates property rights, is unjust, commits aggression, restricts human freedom, impedes and distorts innovation, creativity, free expression, artistic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

There are other groups with similar names/acronyms that should not be conflated with C4SIF. One is the left-libertarian Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS). I used to be a member of its Advisory Panel, but I resigned in 2015 for various reasons; I remain a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the associated Molinari Review (2014–). At least they are anti-IP, so we have something in common.²

But the two most problematically-acronymously-similar centers, first are the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, spearheaded by pro-IP Objectivist law professor Adam Mossoff, and now awkwardly re-named the Center for Intellectual Property x Innovation Policy (C-IP2). And, secondly, the recently formed Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP).³ C4SIF, C4SS, CPIP, C-IP2, C4IP. That’s enough to trip anyone up.

But C-IP2 and C4IP are just IP shills. They are not in favor of innovation; they are in favor of IP law. In fact, C-IP2 née CPIP was more explicit about this initially: its name was “Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property”; it was not hiding this. It did not pretend that its mission was to explore whether IP promoted innovation. Anymore than the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is for innovation. No, innovation was irrelevant to CPIP; it was just assumed that IP promoted innovation.