“The patent system: End it, don’t mend it“–”From AIDS to Android phones, research shows that intellectual property rights are detrimental to the social good.” Superb, concise piece in The Christian Science Monitor, by David K. Levine and Michele Boldrin, authors of Against Intellectual Monopoly.
It is common to argue that intellectual property (IP) in the form of copyrights and patents is crucial for the creation of innovative ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, software, books, and music. Proponents argue that IP is just like ordinary property in houses and cars. In fact, empirical evidence shows that IP does not promote innovation and that, unlike ordinary property, it is detrimental to the social good.
Read the Full Editorial –
{ 16 comments }
In fact, empirical evidence shows that IP does not promote innovation and that, unlike ordinary property, it is detrimental to the social good.
Was this study done by Ug, and Home Lee of the cave dwellers social group? Anyway most of your freedom(to practice your beliefs) was derived from creation of innovative ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, software, books, and music called intellectual property.
So if you really have no good ideas in the solution to help our great country go back to sticking your head in the sand until you do!intellectual property
Ideas are not tangible or scarce. They don’t qualify.
The notion that one should be punished for possessing or producing a copy of something is laughable.
Banking / Financial “products” are not protect by IP. So even with heavy regulation of the financial markets the financial industry managed a high market share through high innovation.
Unfourtnatly, marktes where distorted by gouvernmental itvervention. Result: Boom-Bust-Repeat. Just imagine the outcome of a free market with no IP.
“Banking / Financial “products” are not protect by IP.”
What do you call Federal Reserve Notes.
Not IP.
Really? Federal Reserve Notes are copyrighted by the private Federal Reserve banks. Try copying a Federal Reserve Note and see what happens. Federal Reserve Notes are also patented as “legal tender”.
Try copying Coca Cola see what happens.
Patent what?
The number of mistakes and misinformation in Levine and Boldrin’s editorial is staggering. For more see http://hallingblog.com/2009/12/09/levine-boldrin-argue-the-u-s-should-end-the-patent-system/
By Financial / Bank products I meant mortages, ABS, CP, CDO, CDS, CLN etc. You are right, Banknotes are protected.
Dale, you blew it on the first portion about monopoly. I just skimmed the rest, as I think the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
“–”From AIDS to Android phones, research shows that intellectual property rights are detrimental to the social good.”
You mean like climate research?
i think andras has a point about empirical “evidence”. how can you number-crunch counterfactuals?
privately-awarded monopoly doesn’t need any cost-benefit analysis anyway, it’s just wrong on principle.
make that: “awarded private-monopoly…”
@ Dale B. Halling:
Thank you for your post, because it strengthens my anti-IP position: “(the patent) does not give the holder the right to make, use or sell their invention”. A lot of IP proponents claim it does. It makes me happy that a practicing IP specialist confirms that I’ve been right all along in this respect. I hope Silas Barta is reading this.
Nevertheless, your interpretation of the word “monopoly” is, in my humble opinion, incorrect, even if you use the wikipedia definition. The definition doesn’t say that absent this exclusive grant, the grantee would be incapable of using, producing or selling the good in question, therefore one cannot conclude the “enabling” part of the grant.
Furthermore, as I explained to you twice before, the economic definition of monopoly is different. I presented two:
- Austrian School of Economics (e.g. Hans-Hermann Hoppe): Monopoly is preventing market entry by force.
- Chicago School of Economics (Milton Friedman): Monopoly is when one market participant has the ability to substantially influence the market conditions.
As you see, they both apply onto patents.
Surda: “”(the patent) does not give the holder the right to make, use or sell their invention”. A lot of IP proponents claim it does. It makes me happy that a practicing IP specialist confirms that I’ve been right all along in this respect.”
Peter, what Dale means is that the patent grant is a right to STOP others from making what you have a patent on, but it does not give the patent holder the RIGHT to make it–since making it may well violate someone else’s patent. For example, suppose there are no chairs. A invents a 3-legged stool, and patents it. B then invents a 3-legged-stool with a BACK and patents this. Now, B can stop A from putting backs on his stools. But B cannot make a 3-legged-stool-with-a-back because that is still a 3-legged stool, and covered by A’s patent. So getting a patent doesn’t give you *permission* to make something. As another example, suppose you want to paint your stool with paint that has a chemical covered by C’s patent. YOu can’t do this either. Etc.
This is a trivial point, however. It’s just the typical trotting out of irrelevant specialist expertise to try to quell dissent from normal people. Patents are evil and unjustified, becuase they give A the right to stop B from using his property as he sees fit. The fact that the patent doesn’t give A an actual right to use his patented invention is irrelevant. This fact does not support Halling’s amateur, blowhard claim that this means the patent grant is not a monopoly. Of course it’s a monopoly grant. See my post Are Patents “Monopolies”?
@ Stephan
> Peter, what Dale means is that the patent grant is a
> right to STOP others from making what you have a
> patent on, but it does not give the patent holder the
> RIGHT to make it–since making it may well violate
> someone else’s patent.
Thank you for your post, but I understand it. I was merely pointing out that a lot of IP proponents depend wholly on this on misunderstanding that basic fact.
However:
> Patents are evil and unjustified, becuase they give A
> the right to stop B from using his property as he sees
> fit.
I share IP proponents’ criticism of this argument. This is per se nothing evil or unjust. Even in a world without IP, you are prevented from using your property in a way that violates other people’s property. The problem I see here is that IP introduces another layer of reality that overlaps with the physical world. A world with no boundaries, full of arbitrary rules with no way of foreseeing the consequences of one’s actions. IP “appears out of the blue” “over” or “inside” your physical property. Even more so with patents where no causality is necessary (independent discovery is not a valid defence.
Comments on this entry are closed.